South Korea Drafting Ethical Code for Robotic Age 318
goldaryn writes "The BBC is reporting that the South Korean government is working on an ethical code for human/robot relations, 'to prevent humans abusing robots, and vice versa'. The article describes the creation of the Robot Ethics Charter, which 'will cover standards for users and manufacturers and will be released later in 2007. [...] It is being put together by a five member team of experts that includes futurists and a science fiction writer.'"
I have always had some issue with this (Score:3, Interesting)
To enslave sentient beings is not right. Even Star Trek refused to enslave data or consider him property.
So given those two lines of rationality, why do we need robotics laws?
A bit premature (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Will the next step be "robot rights"? (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, let's be serious here. What will we do? We'll create robots to do our work. We'll create robots who are capable of building other robots (that's been done already). We'll create robots to create the fuel for those robots. And finally we'll create robots to control and command those robots.
All for the sake of taking work off our backs.
And sooner or later, we'll pretty much make ourselves obsolete. From a robot point of view, we're a parasite.
Um, more details.. (Score:3, Interesting)
"The Ministry of Information and Communication has also predicted that every South Korean household will have a robot by between 2015 and 2020.
In part, this is a response to the country's aging society and also an acknowledgement that the pace of development in robotics is accelerating.
The new charter is an attempt to set ground rules for this future.
"Imagine if some people treat androids as if the machines were their wives," Park Hye-Young of the ministry's robot team told the AFP news agency.
"Others may get addicted to interacting with them just as many internet users get hooked to the cyberworld." "
Um, I want more details. I have to agree that I'd want human control over robots even if it meant sentient robots being enslaved. When it comes right down to it, we are human, and they are machines/tools. We shouldn't build some classes of robots just to avoid these problems. I actually kinda of giggled reading this thinking of sex/maid robots. Those would be a selective pressure on humanity. How many or what type of people would marry and reproduce when you could have a robot mate that actually follows your orders, cleans your house, has sex with you as often as you can medically handle, runs your errands and adapts itself to your preferences?
If every 15 year old could easily/cheapily buy their own robot that could do all those things, then the only reason to find a human parnter would be to mate/reproduce. Hmm, we'd need to think about putting in something for "robot mates" to want human offspring after awhile to ensure that their family/mate's geneline survives. These things could be a great form of birth control if nothing else!
But robots are *designed* (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider that, unlike humans, robots can be designed to behave in any manner within the technological capability of the society in question.
Warning - this is pretty dark stuff, and NO, I am not a potential customer. Sometimes if you want to play Devil's Advocate, you have to channel the devil (or at least Stephen King)
So then, what if:
1. Someone builds a mechanical robot (metal, latex, fiberglass, etc) that looks like a person well enough to get through the "uncanny valley". Assume that the robot's simulated anatomy fully matches the human, that it is sapient and sentient, that it has emotions and feels pain.
And that it has been programmed to enjoy being raped.
Not fake-raped either, but the full-bore jump-out-of-the-bushes and *violently* assaulted. And at the time of the attack, the robot experiences all the fear, pain, and humiliation that a human rape victim would (assume the... clientèle... for this "product" wants authenticity) but afterwards, the robot has been programmed to crave more. It *likes* it.
Is that ethical? Should this be permitted?
2. Same robot as example 1 - but now you can buy it with the physical characteristics of an actual person. Instead of a generic "Rape Barbie" or "Rape Ken", it can be bought looking like anybody you want. Be it a celebrity, or your ex-wife, or that girl that sits across fom you at work.
Is that ethical? Should this be permitted?
3. Same robot as #3, but now it is made out of flesh and blood; a kind of golem. (Meat is every bit a construction material as is metal and carbon fibre)
Is that ethical? Should this be permitted?
Personally, I sure hope that we don't discover how to create artificial sentience anytime ever, for the very reason that people will open these kinds of cans of worms.
DG
Re:But robots are *designed* (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I HOPE WE NEVER FIGURE THAT OUT (Score:1, Interesting)
That is another conundrum. What happens when there truly are no jobs they can't do. Who pays for it.
This is the fall of true capitalism and is far worse then true communism. All these things must be done slowly and gradually such that all the requirements of life for human beings is taken care of.
Example when a robot is able to do a job , instead of layoffs, perhaps a reeducation of that workforce to higher learning and where higher learning can't be achieved , perhaps a severance package that when properly invested one could live on [above the poverty line of course]
who pays, well i think as it will eventually happen to all of us, 50% should be granted by the state, other half by the company using the robot.How much well lets say the wage was 40,000 a year.
to invest that to get say 75% monthly. would require at 6% interest. 500,000 times
the corporation would save and get that return back by use of the robot, the state would not have the person on welfare, or whatever, and the banking percent is a low ball. we cold say that one would be ALLOWED after 5 years to reinvest up to 50% as he/she sees fit.
Note taking such a thing disqualifies one from welfare, as even at half (the 50% you cannot divest)
is still like 3 times what they give welfare people here.
Not only would htis better peoples lives, it would free them up to do art and invent( and yes there would be no need of a patent system as people who wish to invent would no longer need money.)
Re:seriously, why does anyone care? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:But robots are *designed* (Score:5, Interesting)
If one day we build robots that can think for themselves then any ethical questions that arise regarding their treatment can be answered almost trivially by reference to the same ethical issue regarding the treatment of humans.
Treating humans as mere means is unethical. Treating sapient robots the same way would be equally unethical. This includes creating genetically modified humans intended to fulfill the needs of their creators rather than their own freely chosen ends.
Simply replace the word "robot" with the word "child" in all of your silly examples and the ethics of the matter becomes clear. If you don't like this, you need to give an account of why some sapient beings are deserving of ethical consideration and not others. Good luck with that.
The same technique can be used to resolve the so-called ethical issues surrounding cloning: replace the world "clone" with the word "child" in any ridiculous example anyone comes up with, and the ethics of the matter will become almost instantaneously clear. Or it will be obviously resolved into a well-worn dispute about the treatment of children that we have all managed to live with for millennia.
There are no new ethical problems raised by the creation of sapient beings--organic or inorganic--by unconventional means.
Re:Will the next step be "robot rights"? (Score:2, Interesting)
A bigger question is, how do we know some humans are sentient?
Re:Will the next step be "robot rights"? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:But robots are *designed* (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me add another example to your list.
4. Same robot as #4, but this robot looks and acts exactly like a pre-pubescent child.
Your post brings up a huge looming issue that society will have to face sometime this century. What happens when virtual reality, advanced robotics, or some combination of the two gives people the ability to act out their sickest and most depraved fantasies in a manner that is practically indistinguishable from "real life"? Will it be legal and ethical for people to rape children or torture young women to death on a regular basis, just because their victims aren't human? What happens when a sizable chunk of society consists of closet sociopaths who have no restrictions on their behavior as long as it doesn't involve a "born" person?
Re:But robots are *designed* (Score:3, Interesting)
What if robots achieved "more sentience" (say, collective sentience) - how would you feel being treated badly because you weren't considered "sentient enough"?
What if we encounter an alien species which clearly sees us as not sentient at all, from their perspective?
And what about individual humans? Some are sheeple and some actually think for themselves - what about sentience in that case?
Can I treat them differently because of that? And why not, since you just said that sentience is the clear requirement?
To quote something I rather like, "Because it is so clear, it takes a longer time to realize it."