In a 2007 op-ed in the journal Science on “Robot Ethics,” SF author Robert J. Sawyer argues that since the U.S. military is a major source of funding for robotics research (and already uses armed unmanned aerial vehicles to kill enemies), such laws are unlikely to be incorporated into their designs. [49] In a separate essay, Sawyer generalizes this argument to other industries, noting that if these three essays ultimately support a socially situated form of relational ethics, then Sætra`s essay – “Challenging the Neo-Anthropocentric Relational Approach to Robot Rights” – provides an important counterpoint. Unlike traditional forms of moral thought, where what something is determines how it is treated, relationalism favors an alternative procedure that reverses the scenario for that entire transaction. In his review of the existing literature on the subject, Sætra notes that the various articulations of “relationalism”, despite many advantages and possibilities, may not be able to successfully solve or escape the problems identified. With the presentation of this diverse series of essays, our intention was to facilitate and stage a debate on the moral and legal status of social robots that can help theorists and practitioners not only understand the current state of research in the field, but also develop their own thinking and explore these important and current concerns. Our goal with the research topic is therefore not to propose a final solution or promote a way to resolve these dilemmas, but to map the range of possible approaches to answering these questions and to give readers the opportunity to critically assess their meaning and significance. Mark W. Tilden is a robotics physicist who pioneered the development of simple robotics. [9] His three guiding principles/rules for robots are:[9][10][11] Spiers believes that prosthetic designers are too caught up in form rather than function. But he`s talked to them enough to know they don`t share his point of view: “I feel like people like the idea that people are awesome and it`s the hands that make people unique.” Almost every robotics department at the university visited by Spiers has an anthropomorphic robotic hand in development. “This is what the future looks like,” he says, looking a little annoyed.
“But there are often better ways.” Robots and artificial intelligences do not inherently contain or obey the Three Laws; Their human creators must choose to program them and find a way to do so. There are already robots (like a Roomba) that are too easy to understand when they cause pain or injury and know how to stop. Many are equipped with physical safety measures such as bumpers, audible alarms, safety cages or access restrictions to prevent accidents. Even the most complex robots currently manufactured are unable to understand and apply the three laws; This would require significant advances in artificial intelligence, and even if AI could achieve intelligence on a human scale, the inherent ethical complexity as well as the cultural/contextual dependence of laws prevent it from being a good candidate for formulating limits in robotic design. [46] However, as robots become more complex, interest in developing safety guidelines and precautions for their operation is also increasing. [47] [48] Marc Rotenberg, president and CEO of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and professor of privacy law at Georgetown Law, argues that two new laws should be added to the laws of robotics: In March 2007, the South Korean government announced that it would publish a “Robot Code of Ethics” later that year. setting standards for users and manufacturers. According to Park Hye-Young of the Ministry of Information and Communications, the charter could reflect Asimov`s three laws that attempt to establish ground rules for the future development of robotics. [53] In the July/August 2009 issue of IEEE Intelligent Systems, Robin Murphy (Raytheon Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at Texas A&M) and David D.
Woods (director of the Ohio State Cognitive Systems Engineering Laboratory) presented “The Three Laws of Responsible Robotics” to stimulate discussion about the role of responsibility and authority in designing not only a single robotic platform, but the broader system in which the platform operates. The laws are as follows: One of the reasons people want to prevent “abuse” of robot companions is the protection of social values. Parents of young children with a robot pet in their household are probably familiar with the situation where they intervene vigorously to prevent their toddler from kicking the toy or physically abusing it. Their reasons for this are partly to protect the (usually expensive) object from breaking, but also to prevent the child from engaging in behaviors that might be harmful in other contexts. Given the robot`s realistic behavior, a child could easily equate kicking a living creature such as a cat or other child. As it becomes increasingly difficult for young children to fully understand the difference between live pets and realistic robots, we may want to teach them to be equally mindful of both. While this is easy to do when a parent controls the robot and the child, protecting social robots in general would create a framework for society and prevent children from engaging in undesirable behavior elsewhere. It might even protect them from traumatic experiences, such as older children “tormenting” a robot toy on the playground with which the child has developed an emotional relationship at home.
three laws of robotics, rules developed by science fiction author Isaac Asimov, who wanted to create an ethical system for humans and robots. The laws first appeared in his short story “Runaround” (1942) and later became very influential in the science fiction genre. In addition, they later found relevance in discussions about technology, including robotics and AI. A practical difficulty lies in determining limiting factors. To pass protective laws, we would have to find a good definition of “social robot”. It could be something like “an embodied object with some degree of autonomous behavior designed specifically for social interaction with people.” However, this definition may not cover all robotic objects that people want to protect (e.g. Robots that spark social engagement, such as the military robots mentioned above), or it may prove too broad. We should also clearly define the scope of protection, including what constitutes “abuse”. While many problems can be solved analogous to animal abuse laws, there can be difficult borderline cases, especially given the rapid evolution of technology.
The challenge of drawing these boundaries is not new in our legal system, but it may take some effort to find the right balance.
