Rise of the machines: As robots become increasingly popular and available, should we devise international ethics guidelines for their use?
Credit: Manfred Werner
WASHINGTON: The introduction of robot ethics guidelines is needed immediately, amid surging use of the machines and concern about their lack of human responsibility, a British researcher has said.
In an article published today in the journal Science, artificial intelligence and robotics professor Noel Sharkey, from the University of Sheffield in South Yorkshire, argues that the steady increase in the use of robots in day-to-day life poses unanticipated risks and ethical problems.
My Spoon, My Problem?
Outside of military applications, Sharkey worries how robots - and the people who control them - will be held accountable when the machines work with "the vulnerable," namely children and the elderly.
He notes that there are already robotic machines in wide use, such as the Japanese meal assistance robot 'My Spoon'.
Robots could also soon be entrusted by parents to guard and monitor their children, replacing a flesh-and-blood carer and posing potential problems in long-term exposure to the machines, Sharket said.
"There are already at least 14 companies in Japan and South Korea that have developed child care robots... The question here is, will this lead to neglect and social exclusion?"
Monkeying around
Short-term exposure "can provide an enjoyable and entertaining experience that creates interest and curiosity," Sharkey said, "[but] we do not know what the psychological impact will be for children... left for long hours in the care of robots."
Experiments conducted on monkeys suggest there is reason for concern, said Sharkey, with young monkeys left in the care of robots becoming "unable to deal with other monkeys and to breed".
With prices plunging by 80 per cent since 1990, consumer sales of robots have surged in the 21st century, reaching nearly 5.5 million in 2008, and are expected to double to 11.5 million in the next two years.


I Robot, You Knucklehead
"Sharkey has studied robotics for 30 years...He shrugs off doomsday scenarios presented in books such as Isaac Asimov's I, Robot, which depicts the threatening interaction between robots and humans..."
He's studied the subject for three decades, but is unaware that the whole point of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics was to achieve exactly what he's calling for? He's read I, Robot (or has he just watched the stupid rip-off movie?) and failed to notice that Asimov shows harmonious interactions between humans and robots, despite occasional glitches and the hysterical fear of uninformed humans.
Asimov's Three Laws were admittedly shorthand for a vastly complex set of hard-wired ethical directives, but probably wouldn't work. Even so, Sharkey is a nitwit.
I enjoy tacos.
I enjoy tacos.
Who is really the knucklehead
If you read all of the Asimov robot novels you should be aware that Asimov was simply using the Three Laws to show the kinds of philospical conundrums that can arise from the rules. In caves of steel, for example, he illustrated how robots could be deceived into murdering a human.
In the 1980s Asimov introduced the zeroth rule because sometimes killing a human could do best for humanity (utilitarian ethics). So a robot could wipe out a city of humans to save a planet of humans.
This number of conflicts that arise from the laws make them unworkable for actual engineering work. If you have ever programmed a robot or even worked with one you will know that it is difficult for a robot to tell the difference between a washing machine and a human nevermind protect humanity.
They say that ignorance is bliss and you must be very blissful.
robot/people ethics
sharkey says..."It is the application of robots by people that concerns me and not the robots themselves." I worry about parents trusting their kids to the care of a machine. The "psycological impact" should be considered by both manufactors and parents before unleashing machinery on children.
Science vs. Science FICTION
Another good point to make here is that I, Robot is a work of fiction. Hence, Asimov did not show anything about human-robot interactions or their consequences since these events never happened. That would be similar to using Star Trek to say that NASA has not been watching enough Star Trek to realize they could use warp drives to go really fast instead of primitive rockets. Boy won't their faces be red. Actually, if there is any fiction out there that can explain this situation well, its the episode of Futurama where Fry gets a robot girlfriend. However, only take its message with a grain of salt, instead of blinding believing that it is true.