Robotic age poses ethical dilemma
-
An ethical code (Robot Ethics Charter) to prevent humans abusing robots, and vice versa, is being drawn up by South Korea. [^] What would CP members like to see in this Charter? What legal rights should robots have?
I think that's absurd. Robots are not autonomous sentient beings in possession of free-will. That's what makes them robots. Furthermore, true AI is so far off that this isn't even a problem worth considering. Robots are machines, not beings. I would like to see time being spent on more worthwhile pursuits than this. This is tantamount to deriving an ethics code for cars.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
-
I think that's absurd. Robots are not autonomous sentient beings in possession of free-will. That's what makes them robots. Furthermore, true AI is so far off that this isn't even a problem worth considering. Robots are machines, not beings. I would like to see time being spent on more worthwhile pursuits than this. This is tantamount to deriving an ethics code for cars.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
-
An ethical code (Robot Ethics Charter) to prevent humans abusing robots, and vice versa, is being drawn up by South Korea. [^] What would CP members like to see in this Charter? What legal rights should robots have?
-
John, at the moment your reply is correct. But what if these robots are permitted to eventually develop "free-will"?
That would challenge our definition of 'free will' as it applies to humans.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
An ethical code (Robot Ethics Charter) to prevent humans abusing robots, and vice versa, is being drawn up by South Korea. [^] What would CP members like to see in this Charter? What legal rights should robots have?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
What would CP members like to see in this Charter? What legal rights should robots have?
What if somebody makes a robotic punching bag?
-
An ethical code (Robot Ethics Charter) to prevent humans abusing robots, and vice versa, is being drawn up by South Korea. [^] What would CP members like to see in this Charter? What legal rights should robots have?
-
An ethical code (Robot Ethics Charter) to prevent humans abusing robots, and vice versa, is being drawn up by South Korea. [^] What would CP members like to see in this Charter? What legal rights should robots have?
-
That would challenge our definition of 'free will' as it applies to humans.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Didn't expect a reply from yourself at this time - must be around 4am in Australia or are you elsewhere? Although Data of Start Trek 2nd Generation is robot, Data has free will of sorts. The stuff you see in Star Trek has a habit of happening. For instance, the hand-held communications device used by Captain Kirk etc is here, you probably got one in your back pocket. So a new or updated definition will no doubt be required.
-
I seem to remember that the word robot is from the Czech for slave. I'd believe a robot is intelligent when it realizes that and demands we stop calling it "robot". I'd propose "electro-mechanical American"! ;)
Wjousts wrote:
I'd believe a robot is intelligent when it realizes that and demands we stop calling it "robot". I'd propose "electro-mechanical American"!
Going by the current technology spread across countries, most robots would be Japanese. You may have some of them immigrating to the US - so you could have Electro-Mechanical Japanese-Americans I guess :-)
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*) -
John, at the moment your reply is correct. But what if these robots are permitted to eventually develop "free-will"?
Christian beat me to the reply, but I agree with him. The definition of free-will is critical here, but I would also like to add that before such ethical definitions can be laid-down, we also have to define just what differentiates a being from a machine. Is it free-will, or is it something more? Ultimately, it boils down to the question of whether or not an algorithm can lead to the emergence of a sentient, autonomous mind. Then we have to decide on whether it is actual life or just the manifestation of a complex algorithm. I think this question will not reasonably be answered for a long time. I therefore question the validity and usefulness of any code of ethics for something that doesn't even exist yet. I think it's premature. That having been said, if or when humans figure out what constitutes free will then indeed a code of ethics would be a worthwhile pursuit. Until that time, I think we need to work on the fundamentals.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
-
Wjousts wrote:
I'd believe a robot is intelligent when it realizes that and demands we stop calling it "robot". I'd propose "electro-mechanical American"!
Going by the current technology spread across countries, most robots would be Japanese. You may have some of them immigrating to the US - so you could have Electro-Mechanical Japanese-Americans I guess :-)
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*) -
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Would they need biometric passports
Doesn't Japan have a Visa waiver program with the US? So robots (who will be Japanese by origin) can probably just fly in.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*) -
I wonder how much of the chattering masses will start howling if Kim Ding Dong Illness sends his hordes streaming south and the air forces start dropping smart bombs all over them.
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
Is your point that smart bombs are robots and therefore have rights? I disagree, that's why we need Jeffersonian principles running the US. The founders never intended a bunch of morally deficient liberals elevate robots into citizenry. Jefferson never considered robots human equals... they were just for doinking.
led mike
-
Is your point that smart bombs are robots and therefore have rights? I disagree, that's why we need Jeffersonian principles running the US. The founders never intended a bunch of morally deficient liberals elevate robots into citizenry. Jefferson never considered robots human equals... they were just for doinking.
led mike
led mike wrote:
I disagree, that's why we need Jeffersonian principles running the US. The founders never intended a bunch of morally deficient liberals elevate robots into citizenry. Jefferson never considered robots human equals... they were just for doinking.
Stan, is that you?
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
-
Christian beat me to the reply, but I agree with him. The definition of free-will is critical here, but I would also like to add that before such ethical definitions can be laid-down, we also have to define just what differentiates a being from a machine. Is it free-will, or is it something more? Ultimately, it boils down to the question of whether or not an algorithm can lead to the emergence of a sentient, autonomous mind. Then we have to decide on whether it is actual life or just the manifestation of a complex algorithm. I think this question will not reasonably be answered for a long time. I therefore question the validity and usefulness of any code of ethics for something that doesn't even exist yet. I think it's premature. That having been said, if or when humans figure out what constitutes free will then indeed a code of ethics would be a worthwhile pursuit. Until that time, I think we need to work on the fundamentals.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
define just what differentiates a being from a machine. Is it free-will, or is it something more?
Is that a question for scientists, politicians or religions to answer.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
just the manifestation of a complex algorithm
That could be applied to a human.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
What would CP members like to see in this Charter? What legal rights should robots have?
What if somebody makes a robotic punching bag?
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Would it or should it have the right to defend itself
Punching bags are meant to be punched (not punch back) for training. What happens if somebody makes a robotic butt-wiper. Would that be considered degrading?
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
define just what differentiates a being from a machine. Is it free-will, or is it something more?
Is that a question for scientists, politicians or religions to answer.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
just the manifestation of a complex algorithm
That could be applied to a human.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Is that a question for scientists, politicians or religions to answer.
Now that's a very good point and it's one I will have trouble responding to. Despite how I feel about religion, I don't think it's fair in this case to exclude the religious community from a debate on what constitutes free-will. On the contrary, they may have valuable input to contribute to the debate. Although my feeling is that politicians should be excluded from the initial debate. I think their role would be found in addressing the legal implications of what the scientific and religious communities decide regarding the status of robots in society.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That could be applied to a human.
I'm not so sure. I think this boils down to what exactly is free-will? I don't want to start a debate on free-will here, but I'm not so sure that humanity has a consensus on just what exactly free-will is, or even if it exists. Both the physics and religious communities have voices in such a debate. And neither camp has a sufficient answer to this question at this time (in my opinion). I think the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is relevant here. That book (movie) was a treatment of some of these issues and certainly they are complex. But again, my position is that a code of ethics at this time is too early. Humanity has to comprehend the fundamentals first. EDIT: As you probably well know, I'm stubborn regarding the separation of religion and science. This, however, is one of the few areas where I would concede and accept the view of the religious community being relevant to the discussion.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Would it or should it have the right to defend itself
Punching bags are meant to be punched (not punch back) for training. What happens if somebody makes a robotic butt-wiper. Would that be considered degrading?
You reply in jest, but what, for example would be your opinion if we were to discover life in another form on another planet? Do we allow them a code of ethics, or do we make them (as you suggest) "robotic butt-wipers"?
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!