Killer robots can be taught ethics
(Credit:
Signet)
Adherence to the Three Laws of Robotics as put forth by Isaac Asimov has been, until now, entrusted to whoever held the joystick. That may change.
A robotics engineer at the Georgia Institute of Technology has developed an "ethical governor," which could be used to program military robots to act ethically when deciding when, and whom, to shoot or bomb.
Ron Arkin has demonstrated the system using attack UAVs and actual battlefield scenarios and maps from recent U.S. military campaigns in Afghanistan. (videos)
In one scenario, a drone spots Taliban soldiers, but holds its fire because they're in a cemetery--fighting there is against international law.
In another, the UAV identifies an enemy convoy close to a hospital, but limits itself to shooting up the vehicles so as to avoid collateral damage to the hospital. The mindful bot would also house a built in "guilt system," which would force it to behave more cautiously, after making a mistake.
While the work shows promise, it also draws attention to the inadequacy of trying to program machines with morals, especially ones expected to perform in a complex battlefield environment, according to experts.
"Robots don't get angry or seek revenge but they don't have sympathy or empathy either," Noel Sharkey, a roboticist at Sheffield University, U.K., told New Scientist. "Strict rules require an absolutist view of ethics, rather than a human understanding of different circumstances and their consequences."
Arkin acknowledges that it may take a while before we can trust predators and other unmanned killers with life and death decisions.
"These ideas will not be used tomorrow, but in the war after next, and in very constrained situations." Arkin is quoted in New Scientist. "The most important outcome of my research is not the architecture, but the discussion that it stimulates."
Mark Rutherford is a West Coast-based freelance writer. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Email him at markr@milapp.com. Disclosure. 
fire = False
Its not that hard
try {
if person.isSurrendering() || person.unarmed() || person.isBegging() ...
fire = true
}
catch MightBeSuicideBomberException
//too hard to figure out, just shoot the guy
//better safe than sorry!
fire = true
catch HatesAmericansException
//shouldn't deserve to live
fire = true
catch WearingCivilianClothesException
//meh, who cares if we take out a few citizens as well
//they might be a threat
fire = true
yea, that was pretty easy!
b) The override button will be on the desk of the Justice Department under a red protective lid labeled "only in case of war." And on the same desk will be a small sign reading "The war on terror never ends."
I also agree computers/AI isn't intelligent enough to decipher a simple picture and there is no way they should or can determine who is in the wrong and who is in the right.
As one who has been playing with machine intelligence algorithms for more than 35 years now I can only say it?s a fascinating subject and each new step towards machines that are more intelligent, in a general rather than a specific sense, which we have already reached, than we are is to be encouraged as it should provide an objective measure that we as mere wetware humans can learn from.
Fire = True
elif Graveyard.isPresent() or Hospital.isPresent() or School.isPresent:
Fire = False
else:
Fire = True
I modified my code a little
Define "harm."
For humans to evolve, they would no longer be "human" by most definitions. And insults to genetics or development don't fit the definition of human to a lot of people; which is why we allow abortions.
We deliberately cause harm to each other and our children every day. It's necessary to apply stress for learning and growth. People who exercise their bodies are causing harm. People who don't exercise their bodies are causing a different sort of harm. Harm is relative and situational and totally dependent on values. Because every person has a unique set of values, you will never have a 100% acceptable definition of harm or benefit.
Come to think of it, the definition of humanity is value-based also. So no concurrence in that matter either.
The Zeroth Law requiring robots "Not to allow humanity to come to harm ..." violates human free will. It's also a violation of the Federation Prime Directive.
- by esiders July 2, 2009 1:11 PM PDT
- This is hilarious, How can you teach ethics to a robot when the people teaching the ethics abide by them. It is a simple case of practice what you preach.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(14 Comments)