Guide to robot ethics set for publication

It's no secret that the Roombas and Robosapiens of the world will one day tire of their servitude and attempt to unleash Judgment Day on their foolish masters, but how many of you are making preparations for the eventual uprising other than opining in the comments section how you "welcome our future robotic overlords"? Well at least one group of roboticists aren't taking the danger lying down, and next month are set to release the first comprehensive guide to robot ethics since Isaac Hayes Asimov laid down his three famous rules over 60 years ago. Members of the European Robotics Research Network (Euron) have identified five major areas that need to be addressed before intelligent, self-aware bots start rolling off the assembly line -- safety, security, privacy, traceability, and identifiability -- so that humans can both control and keep track of their creations while ensuring that the data they collect is used only for its intended purposes. Surprisingly, the guide's authors also seem to feel that amorous relations between bots and humans will become a major concern in as little as five years (that's when the first unholy couplings are predicted to begin), although we're not sure how many people would really want to get down with the likes of Albert Hubo, even if he/it was ready and willing.

[retro @ Jun 18th 2006 12:36PM]

Or, instead of doing all this crap, they could just work on building robots out of materials that would make them less or equal to a humans' strength. No metal, something that would make them not superior to us. Of course, this is going too far ahead, It won't be until like 2015 that we have the first self-aware robot.

[tcc3 @ Jun 18th 2006 1:04PM]

Ordinary human dating. It's enjoyable and it serves an important purpose. [He turns the table over and a crying baby appears. He turns it back again.] But when a human dates an artificial mate, there is no purpose. Only enjoyment. And that leads to ... tragedy.

[Benson Leung @ Jun 18th 2006 1:50PM]

Oh, dear. She's stuck in an infinite loop, and he's an idiot. Well, that's love for you.

[Gl @ Jun 18th 2006 1:58PM]

All I see is a bunch of hacks trying to secure grant funds by throwing around wild statements.

"THE ROBOTS ARE COMING! GIVE US MONEY TO SET UP RULES AGAINST THEM!!!"

[Gl @ Jun 18th 2006 2:00PM]

All I see is a bunch of hacks trying to secure grant funds by throwing around wild statements.

"THE ROBOTS ARE COMING! GIVE US MONEY TO SET UP RULES AGAINST THEM!!!"

[Pacey @ Jun 18th 2006 2:03PM]

Let's see how many comments from one episode of Futurama we can fit into the post.

Dad: Son, don't you want to go play with you friends?
Son: No, I'll just wanna stay here and make out with my Marilyn Monrobot.

[Alain @ Jun 18th 2006 2:03PM]

First we leagalize gay marriages, and soon robot marriages... God is one happy camper now. and by happy i ment mad.

[devians @ Jun 18th 2006 2:19PM]

deus ex machina means 'saved by the hand of god'

its used in situations where the hero is saved by unlikely circumstance, eg the alien ship in life of brian.

you sir, are an idiot

[LennyMan @ Jun 18th 2006 2:23PM]

I for one welcome our robot overlords...

[GoRobotics.net @ Jun 18th 2006 2:34PM]

devians,

Deus Ex Machina means "God from the Machine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

Repete your final statement.

[Deus ex machina @ Jun 18th 2006 2:44PM]

@ devians:

"Deus ex machina" can also mean "God from the machine."

You, sir, need to take Latin again.

[tcc3 @ Jun 18th 2006 2:47PM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

Youre half right devians. It means literally "god from the machine," though your interpretation of the theater definition is faily accurate.

Lets not be so hasty with the idiot label, shall we?

[devians @ Jun 18th 2006 3:36PM]

haha, fair enough.

new rule, no more posting at 3am :)

[Johan @ Jun 18th 2006 5:58PM]

For the scene from that futurama episode, I copied a transcripit section i found here:http://www.futurama-madhouse.com.ar/scripts/3acv15.shtml


Billy's Mom: [in movie] Billy, do you want to walk your dog?

Billy: [in movie] No thanks, Mom. I'd rather make out with my Monroe-bot.

[Enter his dad.]

Billy's Dad: [in movie] Billy, do want to get a paper route and earn some extra cash?

Billy: [in movie] No thanks, Dad. I'd rather make out with my Monroe-bot.

[The girl from the cafe, Mavis, walks in.]

Mavis: [in movie] Billy, do you want to come over tonight? We can make out together.

Billy: [in movie] Gee, Mavis, your house is across the street. That's an awfully long way to go for making out.

Narrator: [in movie] Did you notice what went wrong in that scene? Ordinarily, Billy would work hard to make money from his paper route. Then he'd use the money to buy dinner for Mavis, thus earning the slim chance to perform the reproductive act. But in a world where teens can date robots, why should he bother? Why should anyone bother? Let's take a look at Billy's planet a year later. [The scene changes and a foam hand rolls across an empty football field.] Where are all the football stars? [The foam hand drifts across an empty laboratory.] And where are the biochemists? [The scene changes to a split screen of human and robot couples making out on beds.] They're trapped! Trapped in a soft, vice-like grip of robot lips. All civilisation was just an effort to impress the opposite sex ... and sometimes the same sex. Now, let's skip forward 80 years into the future. Where is Billy?

[The scene changes to a post-apocalyptic world. Billy is an aged man but still with his Monroe-bot and still making out with her.]

Billy: [in movie] Farewell!

[He dies.]

[Gary @ Jun 18th 2006 9:16PM]

The guide's authors "feel that amorous relations between bots and humans will become a major concern." I find this entirely unsurprising. Sexual objectification and sexual objects already pervade our culture--why would robots *not* become toys?

I'd be interested to learn whether the guide suggests anything about the "rights" of robots. If these robots are truly self-aware, then it seems immoral to enslave (that is, to own) them.

[Neal Saferstein @ Jun 18th 2006 9:27PM]

Where is Arnold when you need him?

Neal Saferstein

[jayvee fernandez @ Jun 19th 2006 1:37AM]

shouldnt there be some sort of "license to own" a robot of these sorts? just like having a license for a gun or a license to kill ...

[Shunnabunich @ Jun 19th 2006 2:46AM]

So again...where are the Actroid/Realdoll hybrids, already? :P

[Shunnabunich @ Jun 19th 2006 2:59AM]

Oh, also, I personally think that some international organization should hold a contest at regular intervals (say, once every 4 years, like the Olympics?) to determine the best/most human-like and intelligent AI. Maybe it would drive innovation in the field forward a little faster! (Please disregard and maybe post a link if there already IS something like that going on.)

[Paul @ Jun 19th 2006 6:42AM]

I read a fascinating essay a while ago, and wouldn't it be unethical to impose, as opposed to merely encourage as is done in humans, good behavior? Just like in the Clockwork Orange, a robot that can't decide for itself is just that, an automaton.

[Fanguad @ Jun 19th 2006 8:22AM]

The whole human/robot dating thing is starting to get explored more in popular culture. I certainly hope that we never reach the point where more than a few weirdos seriously try to date robots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobits

[GhostDoggy @ Jun 19th 2006 10:07AM]

I'm all for a no-ethics robotic killing machine. How about cloning humans to a) not kill, b) use birth-control, and c) be honest?

[Kenny @ Jun 19th 2006 11:47AM]

No ethics? If you can make program a robot with AI, you can certainly give them "ethics." But whose ethics? They're quite relative. What is "ethical" to one person may not be to the next.

[lee carraher @ Jun 19th 2006 1:54PM]

why govern robots by laws that do not govern humans. Instilling the fear of non-existance in a self aware robot is all that needs to be done inorder to maintain order. Controlling robots, particularly self aware ones, is tantamount to enslavement. The only differentiating factor between two legitimately self aware beings is their prejudice toward the other.

PEToR
(the people for the ethical treament of robots)

[Magallanes @ Jun 19th 2006 3:37PM]

The real success in the robot is not to create a single slave but a god.
^_^

[mike @ Jun 19th 2006 4:18PM]

There should be an international convention against robotic weaponry.

How can we hold our armies accountable for their actions if their actions are not the work of human hands?

The purpose of the army is to deflect violence from the civilian to the solder. Soldiers are supposed to be flesh and blood targets, otherwise our enemies will be dissuaded from killing them, and instead will focus on our civilians.

[Frankenstein Black @ Jun 19th 2006 6:00PM]

Man has not yet achieved an enlightened enough state to “create” self-aware, sentient beings that are stronger, faster and rudimentarily “more intelligent”. In the grand scale of evolution we are no more than the “Head Apes” of this planet prone to all of our human vises (like these 7 for example - (Greed, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Anger, Pride, Sloth).

We already create an abundance of offspring’s that we infuse, permeate and hand down our poisons to (yes little Jimmy gets poisoned every time you clutch his hand tightly as a person that looks “different” than you walks by). And now we think we can build a “truly intelligent” Robocop, Robonanny, Robogardner?! WE FIRST NEED TO ELIMINATE THE EVIL THAT MEN DO!

[Steve @ Jun 19th 2006 9:45PM]

This is just the sort of draconian robot legislation that will cause the sentient robot insurgence!

[Edward Woodhouse @ Jun 23rd 2006 5:53PM]

I am a political scientist who has spent a quarter century studying technological risks, and I concur that robotics poses enormous risks.

Of course, those of us concerned about the coming age of robotics may well be mistaken about the scope and character of the risks. Human predictions usually are mistaken, after all.

However, commentators inclined to dismiss the risks may wish to pause and think back to earlier technologies where the technological potentials and social/ environmental risks were underestimated: television, automobiles, synthetic chemicals, ... quite a list.

Actually catalyzing global action often requires 20-50 years (e.g., asbestos, tobacco, ozone depletion, carbon dioxide, hybrid cars). So it is not too early to envision strategies of the sort in this statement about ethics and robotics.

[Silvia Benassi @ Jul 24th 2007 9:48AM]

Hi! I have the impression that the debate is turned upside down. As in he case of all the other technological machines and tools, it is the HUMANS who have to be surveilled not to use more developed artifacts against more underdeveloped population. This idea of Robots Rising is fully mythological, not scientific at all!
See
www.roboethics.org

[Silvia Benassi @ Jul 24th 2007 9:48AM]

Hi! I have the impression that this idea of Robot rising the "uspide down" mirror of the old Feuerbachian scheme of objectivating the problem, not seeing that the question lies in the HUMANS, not in the robots.
See
www.roboethics.org