Roboticists Argue for Robot System of Ethics

Posted by John Farrier in Science & Tech on July 22, 2009 at 3:16 pm


Since scientists are out to kill us again, what with flesh-eating robots, ethicists and roboticists have called for revisions to Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics:

A human-robot co-existence society could emerge by 2030, says Chen in his paper. Already iRobot’s Roomba robotic vacuum cleaner and Scooba floor cleaner are a part of more than 3 million American households. The next generation robots will be more sophisticated and are expected to provide services such as nursing, security, housework and education.

These machines will have the ability to make independent decisions and work reasonably unsupervised. That’s why, says Chen, it may be time to decide who regulates robots.

If it was up to you, what laws would you program into robots?

Link


Previous post
this post? Please Email this               
Next post

Tags: , ,


FUN PRODUCTS FROM THE NEATORAMA SHOP:


COMMENT

9 comments to "Roboticists Argue for Robot System of Ethics"

  1. Weaksauce
    July 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    That will all be on a states by state basis of coarse, just wait till robots want to get gay married!

    Don't even get me started on robot abortion ethics.

  2. 1 Lucky Texan
    July 22nd, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    They should be required to be programmed to bring you beer, sandwiches and offer sex on demand.

    Oh...wait...that's women.

    nrmd

  3. olderthanyou
    July 22nd, 2009 at 4:18 pm

    Even DARPA, arguably the people working on the most advanced robots can't get a simple car to drive itself around a closed course. Autonomous robots capable of even the most simple ethical decisions are so far in the future that this kind of discusion is stupid. For the forseeable future anybody killed by a robot was either a victim of bad programming, or dumb enough to walk into the path of a properly programmed robot.

  4. Gary.James
    July 22nd, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    Basically the 3 laws mad popular by Asimov, with two added.

    3b. A "robot" must surrender its existence to an authorized authority upon command.

    4a. A "robot" must identify itself as such, either as protocol or by request, to any body.

    4b a "robot" can identify themselves as a particular unit and to whom they belong, but must to a recognized authority.

  5. Aramax
    July 22nd, 2009 at 11:12 pm

    Laws are made to be broken. I doubt those robotic law program will be 100% fail proof and therefore are practicaly useless.

    Only create machines that are unable to cause harm to any human by their own. Problem solved and you saved yourself a lot of time.

  6. Anonymouse
    July 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 am

    If we have learned anything from computer protocols and formats, it's that there will be thousands of variations of the "laws" that can barely interoperate.

  7. Video Game Dork
    July 23rd, 2009 at 3:32 am

    AI is complicated trickery. 'Chen in his paper' is an idiot. Or a sensationalist.

  8. DA
    July 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    Robot laws are scifi nonsense. As effective as UN laws or any other idealistic set of rules created to give us the illusion of creating safety. Nothing has ever been successfully banned or controlled. Regulations and force through superior technology can hinder things, but not prevent that which people want in their lives...like weapons, drugs, or killing machines to use on their enemies. See the cyberdawnfoundation.com

  9. ted
    July 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 pm

    I'm still waiting for the robot suicide bombers. What an ethical dilemma that is for those poor machines.


PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT

Neatorama Comment Policy
You don't have to register or login to comment, but it's easier if you do so. Comments aren't censored, but those that are abusive or off-topic may be edited or deleted.


Stay updated on the comments with Comment RSS