Eric Horvitz illustrates the potential dilemmas of living with robots by telling the story of how he once got stuck in an elevator at Stanford Hospital with an android the size of a washing machine.
“I remembered thinking: ‘Whoa, this is scary,’ as it whirled around, almost knocking me down,” the Microsoft researcher recalled. “Then, I thought: ‘What if I were a patient?’ There could be big issues here.”
We’re still far from the sci-fi dream of having robots whirring about and catering to our every need, but little by little, we’ll be sharing more of our space with robots in the next decade, as prices drop and new technology creates specialized machines that clean up spilled milk or even provide comfort for an elderly parent.
Now scientists and legal academics are exploring the likely effects.
What happens if a robot crushes your foot, chases your cat off a ledge or smacks your baby?
While experts don’t expect a band of Terminators to attack or a 2001: A Space Odyssey computer that takes control, even simpler, benign robots will have legal, social and ethical consequences.
“As we rely more and more on automated systems, we have to think of the implications. It is part of being a responsible scientist,” Horvitz said.
Horvitz assembled a team of scientists this year when he was president of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence and asked them to explore the future of human-robot interactions. A report on their discussions is due next year.
For years, robots have been used outside the home. They detect bombs on the battleground, build cars in factories and deliver supplies and visit patients in hospitals, but the past few years have seen the rise of home robots. Mainly they are used for tasks like vacuuming (think Roomba). There are also robotic lawn mowers, duct cleaners, surveillance systems and alarm clocks. There are robotic toys for entertainment, such as Furby. Robotic companions, like Paro the harbor seal, comfort the elderly.
By 2015, personal robot sales in the US are expected to exceed US$5 billion, more than quadrupling what they are now, according to ABI Research, which analyzes technology trends.
“You won’t see Rosie from The Jetsons, but you’re going to see more and more robots that help maintain your home. They’ll pick up stuff off the floor, stock your fridge, carry stuff from the car,” said Colin Angle, chief executive of iRobot Corp, which makes the Roomba.
As such robots become more sophisticated, they could complicate questions about product liability. Ryan Calo, a fellow with Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society, said in a recent panel discussion at Stanford Law School that the original manufacturer might not always be liable if a robot went haywire.
“Robots are not just things the manufacturer builds and you go out and use them in a specific way. Robots can often be instructed, they can be programmed, you can have software that is built upon by others,” he said.
There are no laws in the US specifically governing robots and discussion of them usually leads to science fiction writer Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, which debuted in his 1942 short story Runaround.
The first of Asimov’s laws is that robots should do no harm. It’s also one of the biggest considerations when manufacturing the next generation of personal robots.
“If a robot becomes increasingly autonomous and can make its own decisions, what happens if the robot does not carry out the exact wishes of the person?” said George Bekey, a robotics researcher and professor emeritus at the University of Southern California.
As robots interact more closely with people, the bonds some people form with the machines — even ones that do not look like humans — might need to be considered.
Shoppers personalize their Roombas, naming and decorating them, for example. Angle recalled an incident when a soldier plucked a banged-up military robot nicknamed Scooby from an Iraqi battlefield and carried it to a depot to be fixed.
“It’s doing you a service, you’re going to get attached to it,” Angle said.
Ronald Arkin teaches a course on robots and society at Georgia Tech and directs the school’s Mobile Robot Laboratory. His most recent book is titled Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots.
“There needs to be ethics embedded in the systems,” Arkin said. “It’s not just making a system that assists someone. It’s making a system that interacts with someone in a way that respects their dignity.”
Horvitz said his panel would recommend more research into the psychological reactions humans have to robotic systems. The group, he said, also suggests machines be designed with the ability to explain their reasoning to humans.
While ethicists, lawyers and roboticists ponder how to best integrate humans and autonomous machines, there is some evidence that a balance is already beginning to be struck.
After returning to visit the Stanford Hospital several years later, Horvitz noticed a sign hanging above the spot where he had his harrowing experience.
It read: “Please do not board the elevator with the robot.”
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS