Should robots have human rights? Vote? Line Bluring between person and machine.
Should robots have human rights? Act now to regulate
killer machines before they multiply and demand the right to vote, warns legal
expert
Robots will need new laws to regulate them just like the
internet did
Army and tech firms have driven robotics and artificial
intelligence
There is rising concern about the dangers of these
technologies
Experts warn artificial intelligence could be as
dangerous as nuclear weapons
By Jack Millner For Mailonline
Published: 08:22 EST, 20 July 2015 | Updated: 11:20 EST, 20 July 2015
A legal expert has warned that the laws that govern
robotics are playing catch-up to the technology and need to be updated in case
robots 'wake up' and demand rights.
He also argues that artificial intelligence has come of
age, and that we should begin tackling these problems before they arise, as
robots increasingly blur the line between person and machine.
'Robotics combines, for the first time, the promiscuity
of data with the capacity to do physical harm,' Ryan Calo, from the University
of Washington’s School of Law, wrote in his paper on the subject.
'Robotic systems accomplish tasks in ways that cannot be
anticipated in advance; and robots increasingly blur the line between person and
instrument.'
There has been rising concern about the potential danger
of artificial intelligence to humans, with prominent figures including Stephen
Hawking and Elon Musk wading in on the debate.
In January both signed an open letter to AI researchers
warning of the dangers of artificial intelligence.
The letter warns that without safeguards on the
technology, mankind could be heading for a dark future, with millions out of
work or even the demise of our species.
Legal expert Calo outlines a terrifying thought
experiment detailing how our laws might need an update to deal with the
challenges posed by robots demanding the right to vote.
'Imagine that an artificial intelligence announces it has
achieved self-awareness, a claim no one seems able to discredit,' Calo wrote.
'Say the intelligence has also read Skinner v. Oklahoma,
a Supreme Court case that characterizes the right to procreate as “one of the
basic civil rights of man.”
'The machine claims the right to make copies of itself
(the only way it knows to replicate). These copies believe they should count
for purposes of representation in Congress and, eventually, they demand a
pathway to suffrage.
'Of course, conferring such rights to beings capable of
indefinitely self-copying would overwhelm our system of governance.
'Which right do we take away from this sentient entity,
then, the fundamental right to copy, or the deep, democratic right to
participate?'
In other developments, last week computer scientist
Professor Stuart Russell said that artificial intelligence could be as
dangerous as nuclear weapons.
In an interview with the journal Science for a special
edition on Artificial Intelligence, he said: 'From the beginning, the primary
interest in nuclear technology was the "inexhaustible supply of
energy".
'The possibility of weapons was also obvious. I think
there is a reasonable analogy between unlimited amounts of energy and unlimited
amounts of intelligence.
'Both seem wonderful until one thinks of the possible
risks. In neither case will anyone regulate the mathematics.
'The regulation of nuclear weapons deals with objects and
materials, whereas with AI it will be a bewildering variety of software that we
cannot yet describe.'
IS IT WRONG TO KICK A ROBOTIC DOG?
Google's Boston Dynamics has released a video designed to
show off a smaller, lighter version of its robotic dog called Spot.
But the video received an unexpected backlash after
people began complaining that the 'dog' in the clip had been mistreated.
During the footage, employees are seen kicking Spot to
prove how stable the machine is on its feet, but this has been dubbed 'cruel',
'wrong' and has even raised concerns about robotic ethics.
The four-legged, 160lb (73kg) robo-pet can run, climb
stairs, jog next to its owner and correct its balance on uneven terrain, and
when kicked.
It was built by Google-owned Boston Dynamics and is the
'little brother' of the firm's larger Cujo, or 'big dog'.
Boston Dynamics has not revealed what Spot will be used
for, but its video showed the robot-animal climbing up and down hills, walking
through offices and, of course, being kicked repeatedly.
Following the video's release, viewers posted their
concerns on Twitter. One user wrote: 'Kicking a dog, even a robot dog seems
wrong.'
Another said: 'Just wrong, kick a robot dog as practice:
Google's dog robot looks too real for comfort when getting kicked.'
A third added: 'When I first saw [the] Boston Dynamics
video I was very disturbed regarding dog-kicking. I'm not the only one.'
Comments
Post a Comment