3 ms·
I think factory floor robots will be a grey area before elevators. As long as things are deterministic then "fault" can be ascribed - it was the workers fault
by lifeisstillgood 5y ago
I think factory floor robots will be a grey area before elevators. As long as things are deterministic then "fault" can be ascribed - it was the workers fault for climbing over the barriers, or it was the manufacturers fault for not testing the arm would stop moving in < 1.2 seconds.
But as soon as AI / ML becomes involved, it stops being deterministic and becomes probability. "Judgement" is asked of the robot arm. Is that image a person or a car door.
I think this is likely to hit before cars simply because so many of us drive cars but none of us operate giant robot arms.
- blamazon 5y agoA common metric already used in industrial automation liability examination is Safety Integrity Level. [1] This is a probabilistic measure of how likely a failure is. [1] https://blog.msasafety.com/what-safety-integrity-level-means/ https://blog.msasafety.com/what-safety-integrity-level-means...
- smcameron 5y agoBut supposing the robot is "guilty". How (or why) would anyone punish it? Put it in jail? I don't think it will mind. So what would be the point of finding it guilty? Rather, it would make more sense to, in some way "fix" the robot. Same would be true of people, were they easily "fixed".
- mongol 5y agoI think we should treat it as if an animal killed a human. We don't call that murder. If a dog kills a human, I think it is usually put down? Not sure if a whale does it. So it may depend. But in any case, murder I think is reserved for conscious killing of a human by another human.
- oceanplexian 5y agoI'm not sure about an animal killing a human, but certain animals, like primates, definitely commit murder (i.e. the conscious killing of another member of its tribe for territory, social status, or whatever).
- lstodd 5y agoEverything living kills everything in sight for resources. From viruses to civilizations. To some extent this can be moderated, or for a time some optimizations might result in even less destruction, but this is the way this world is. Killing is rational in a sense - for some subset of purposes, in context of some subset of environmental pressures, both of which change constantly, and often faster than adaptation to kill does. Accept this. It will not ever change.
- mongol 5y agoI agree they do but I don't think the word murder is applicable
- smcameron 5y agoIf we could "fix" the animal, rather than killing it, wouldn't we? People are self-reproducing robots that are made of meat. Robots made of meat are very hard to fix.
- dools 5y agoI actually think owners of pets should bear criminal liability for their pets actions.
- wongarsu 5y agoThat "judgement" is a design decision. A ML algorithm misidentifying a person as a car door isn't that different from an elevator cable snapping. That happens more or less randomly too. It could be bad design, bad maintenance (e.g. real world data drifted away from training data but no retraining took place), or just bad luck (an element in almost any accident). Depending on the fault someone or nobody is at fault. And even if nobody is at fault we can still decide to advance the state of the art, and that in the future no single elevator cable snapping should cause more than a minor inconvenience (due to multiple cables, breaks etc).
- lstodd 5y agoEh, this. It all depends on if 'robots', however one defines them are 'conscious', however one defines that. But until that gets settled, it's always a human pulling the trigger. No difference from when someone's pitbull chews off someone else's head. It might be the owner's fault, it might be not. But the dog in question can not be blamed.