Intergrerty -- we've never heard of it - Doc Spinola of that ilk
|
|
|
Asimov's robot laws need updating
ISAAC ASIMOV'S Three Laws of Robotics need a makeover, according to a couple of AI boffins.
Asimov's first law of robotics prohibits robots from injuring humans or allowing humans to come to harm due to inaction. The second law requires robots to obey human orders except those that conflict with the first law. The third law requires robots to protect their own existence, except when to do so conflicts with either of the first two laws.
Space magazine quotes David Woods, a systems engineer at Ohio State University, as calling for a makeover of these laws to recognize the current limitations of robots.
He argues that the problem is not the robots but the people behind them. Woods said that real dangers can arise when humans push robots beyond their current decision-making capabilities.
Woods and fellow researcher Robin Murphy, a roboticist at Texas A&M University, have proposed revising Asimov's Three Laws to emphasize human responsibility over robots. They said that the laws of robotics need to recognise that humans are the intelligent, responsible adults in the robot-human relationship.
Their first law says that humans may not deploy robots without a work system that meets the highest human legal and professional standards of safety and ethics.
The second law requires robots to be designed to respond to humans as appropriate for their roles, and recognises that robots can only respond to certain orders from a limited number of humans.
The third law suggests that robots should have enough autonomy to protect their own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the first two laws and enables smooth transfers of control between human and robot decision-making.
Although this might lead to a skynet, it also means that a robot car will not drive over a cliff or overtake on a dangerous bend.
Many of the more dangerious expectations about robots come from the roboticist software developers' mentality, he said. Software developers who get into robotics often have no idea about the dangers of manufacturing and often do not want to accept liability if their robot behaves like those in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
As in, when "it breaks down, or starts to annoy, or grinds when it moves and gives you no joy 'cos it's eaten your hat, or had sex with your cat, bled oil on your floor or ripped off your door and you get to the point, you can't stand any more". µ
Share this:
Share
Ain't no skin and bone
Weighing in at 19 stone.
All through the night time,
And right around the clock
Whooh! To my surprise, Rosie never stops_
She ain't exactly pretty
Ain't exactly small
Forty-two, thirty-nine, fifty-six
You could say she's got it all!
Down in Oxgate, we need a
Whole lotta Rosie
and it was loopie
Asimov's Laws - and indeed all his robot stories - represented an uncharacteristic departure from hard SF into fantasy. He made the unwarranted assumption that somehow ("here a miracle occurs") technology would be able to create "positronic brains" that worked very much like human brains. Of course, as we know, that dream has turned out to be a very remote one, and the best we can do so far is to emulate very restricted sets of human activity (chess playing, walking, making cars...) Admittedly, Asimov's overoptimism did reflect the general belief in the 1950s and 1960s that artificial intelligence would arrive quite soon.
The Laws of Robotics, depending as they do on robots having human-like intelligence, are also sheer fantasy. It's quite impossible to imagine any electronic device ever being able to decide whether a human being is in danger, for instance. Even human beings are rather bad at that (especially when money is also at stake).
There was a story while back where some outfit attempted to paten DNA. The courts did rejected the paten... This time.
It's just a matter of time, where bio code [DNA] will be equalized and listed under other codes, why do I come to this conclusion? Simply because the stupidity of humans, always changing things in unfortunate ways to satisfy short term wants over long term needs. Diversity is just one example where it's applied in all the wrong places.
When the pattens [on code] diversity will have peaked to the point of saturation, chances are there will be further push, to include DNA in the mix.
That's why, I'm not supporting anybody owning code, nobody should, because code makes up everything even us humans, if these dangerous precedence continue. Slavery trough code ownership may occur. With the unknown of DNA, there may already be some computer code matching DNA somewhere, with the sequences converted to numbers, of course.
But still, that doesn't mean I'm excusing any criminal elements on code either, because NOBODY should own code. That means anybody acting upon ownership of code any code beyond your own would be wrong. That would cover identities.
What he said...
Isaac Asimov's three laws were a fictional creation for a bunch of sci-fi stories, not a serious attempt at providing robotic AI programming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wSBC5Dyds8
share and enjoy? what a load of crap
"Artificial" & "Moronic" ??
Obviously they want the rules changed so the robots can throw the switch.
This is the biggest crock of shyte I have read in a very long time. Those morons from Texas A&M should be absolutely embarrassed to have come up with such lame-brained nonsense. Asimov's laws say everything that needs to be said as concisely as possible. They need NO updating at all !
Then there is this gem :
"Software developers who get into robotics often have no idea about the dangers of manufacturing and often do not want to accept liability if their robot behaves like those in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy."
As a software developer who works with robots a lot I find this ridiculous. You have to be incredibly stupid not to be aware of the dangers of manufacturing and the mountain of laws and safety regulations that have to be complied with.
That says clearly to me that this bunch at A&M are idiots and totally clueless about the real world. The meaning of PhD (Piled Higher and Deeper) has rarely been demonstrated so clearly.
And I bet these nitwits have tenure too.
I can't think of anything more irritating to post than this.
It is amazing how the Inq fathoms to take a haphazard pot-shot at one of the best philosophical contributions of science fiction.
The Asimov's robot laws are masterfully crafted.
They are meant for a society that does not exist yet and may never exist, a society that values human life. A society where all of the technology is designed to aid humans live healthier, safer and more productive lives.
Why don't they just rewrite them to say that the robots need to act like slaves to humans. It'd cover all those little exceptions.
Ah, come on. This is had-a-few-beers philosophising in the bar stuff. Isaac Asimov's three laws were a fictional creation for a bunch of sci-fi stories, not a serious attempt at providing robotic AI programming. Our robots don't yet have anything even close to rudimentary AI yet.
Even in the stories, it's mentioned that the verbal version of the three laws is less than totally accurate, and many of Asimov's stories are based around problems when one law comes into conflict with another or with itself.
This is very much like arguing about how Starfleet's Prime Directive influences our relations with the Pashtun tribes in Afghanistan.
The Sirius Cybernetics Compaints department jinge, if I remember correctly, was:
Share and Enjoy!
Share and Enjoy!
Journey through life with a plastic boy
Or girl by your side, let your pal be your guide!
And when it breaks down,or starts to annoy, or grinds when it moves and gives you no joy 'cos it's eaten your hat, or had sex with your cat, bled oil on your floor or ripped off your door and you get to the point, you can't stand any more,
Bring it to us, we won't give a fig!
We'll tell you: Go stick your head in a pig!
If my memory sereves me right, that last little ditty is a corruption of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporations company anthem, and it ends with the phrase: "Go Stick Your Head in a Pig!".
If anybody has the full text - please post it.
First of all there were more then three laws written by Asamov. He eventually added a fourth which is refered to as the Zeroth law, as it is the most important, which dictates a robot must not merely act in the interests of individual humans but of all humanity. There was also eventually two more laws added by other writers. The fourth law being that a robot must always identify itself as a robot and the fifth law being a robot must know it's a robot, probably added to prevent flipping out as a result of the realisation.
Even with all of these laws a fundimental issue remains that without more advanced morality systems, which the zeroth law is a first step towards, something kinda like what happened in iRobot would happen where a machine would eventually decide that we are the greatest threat to ourselves and must be controlled to ensure the preservation of the species. Honestly the greatest problem facing the ever advancing field of robotics is that the people trying to create the AI's are trying to create Adult level AI's with preset rules as opposed to raising the AI like it was a child and teaching it right from wrong. It's the mechanical equivalant of trying to create a full grown human clone and downloading the legal code into its head, without the life experience it lacks the ability to properly understand the rules which govern it's existance and the ability to interperate situations. The second biggest problem is when people think about an AI robot they think of it as just a machine. Granted AI's aren't sentient yet but that's the ultimate goal and when that happens they will be deserving of the same rights as everyone else.
nnnooooooo.pEOPLE ARE sole source of morality. Your Medical Doctor NO Smarter than Garabge Collection Family that Progenated IT.
Listening via telephone tap makes long list of repeatedable data statements. Let alone Security BLASTS at computer, YOUR, Lies, called innocent Phishie scams. Falsity IS Internet, Are there Any Quality Product delivered thru intenet? Not Really, Any Advisement outside most callous self serving? Nooo.
ARE YOU DAV'D?
Ultee' BOT Waits SO Patiently for Nice Sip O' URN. While real meats in bathering local Medical license numbers & DEA#, THEN LITH SCRIP Software. BOTS CAN SELL DULAUDID $7# sIGheil.,straight from YouMe LIKE e-z AS CHEESE.
VONDRASHEK TAXCOLLECTOR,
The destruction of the human family continues with undue concerns like these, while desolated undisciplined children learning worthless education that is and will be used to ram the constitution down adults wind pipes.
I wonder if RoboCop would kill an armed child? Oh yeah, he did! Or at least as I can remember one died because of him or it.
"They said that the laws of robotics need to recognise that humans are the intelligent, responsible adults in the robot-human relationship."
Depends on which strata of society we are talking about. 12 bottles of Nookie Broon tends to make any Briton's second language English. Couple that with a robot and you could have an interesting Friday night.
Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics were made for robots designed with positronic brains.
His basic assumption was that Artificial Intelligence had truly come into being, and was not the endless joke it is today.
In other words, Asimov's Laws of Robotics were made for human-level intelligent robots, not toasters.
I suggest that those "scientists" take a step down a review their paper as "the Three Laws of Artificially Aware Toasters". Would be more appropriate.
So, it is ok for a robot to perform a mass murder utilizing a work system that meets the highest human legal and professional standards of safety and ethics. How could humans be the intelligent, responsible adults in the robot-human relationship when this goal seems to belong to the realm of fantasy in the human-human relationships?
"Although this might lead to a skynet, it also means that a robot car will not drive over a cliff or overtake on a dangerous bend."
Where as Asimov's robot laws will let this happen?? I dont think so.. both of these examples are covered under the 1st and 3rd laws
The laws need to be as simple and concise as possible, if you start to complicate things then they become open to interpritation
does anyone think the military (in any country) is going to pay any attention at all to some 'pseudo-philosophical' laws?
wake-up, smart bombs are smart cause they do what they're told to do, and no matter how smart they get, they'll always do what they're told to do.