4 ms·

> You can never hold the robot accountable. It's in direct violation of asimov's laws where it's intentionally harming humans. It's remote controlled by a cop.

> You can never hold the robot accountable. It's in direct violation of asimov's laws where it's intentionally harming humans. It's remote controlled by a cop. There's no AI.

aliqot 4y ago
It's not asimov's laws of AI, it's the laws of robotics.
- feet 4y ago
  And those laws are not actual laws in the eyes of the government, why would they care
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- SimonPStevens 4y ago
  Firstly Asimov's laws aren't inviolable physical laws. They were just fictional idea that were suggested could be programmed into robots as a plot device in his books. The stories were frequently about unexpected side effect caused by intersections of the laws and specific situations that caused some kind of ambiguity in how they should be followed. Real world robots could be programmed with or without them, or with entirely different behavioural 'laws'. Secondly, the 'laws' were about behaviour that applies mostly to the AI side of things, the fact they are referred to as laws of robotics is mostly immaterial, they are about behaviour rules for AI.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  I was going to disagree, but re-reading the laws would mean that the robot would be required to be capable of overriding any input command from a human which might cause it to harm another human. I'm inclined to agree that violating this is generally a bad idea. I don't know that I would go so far as to make it a law, as I am not a pacifist and would prefer a robot to retain the capability to override the first law exclusively in the interest of obeying the second law, when there is an audit trail of commands given such that someone- whether the robot or the human behind the robot- can be held to account.
  - nradov 4y ago
    You've got to be kidding. Law enforcement robots are completely remote controlled by a human operator. They have no capability to override an input command, or even understand what harm to a human means. We're talking about the real world here, not science fiction. The robots have video cameras so those recordings can be used to hold the human operator to account.
    - zdragnar 4y ago
      No, this thread is talking about whether or not violating asimov's supposed laws are a Bad Idea. Naturally, the current implementation is a long, long way from complying with those concepts. The real question, for today and now, should be: Should we be focusing on implementing more safety measures (getting us closer to the principles behind the laws) or should we deploy what we have in a situation where they can be used for violence? Are the video feeds from the robots recorded? Are those recordings accessible to the person manipulating the robot, or their direct superiors? Are there backups in case those "get lost"? Are there on-board backups in case of network loss? Some sort of black-box maybe? Can the robot's weapons be deployed if the recording is not in progress? Even if the robot itself doesn't have an independent will, it can still be equipped with safeguards. Hell, automatic doors almost always have sensors that prevent the door from crushing something if it is in the way of the door closing. Surely we should be more stringent with weaponized robots than we are with garage doors.
      - nradov 4y ago
        Asimov was just a mediocre author, nothing more. Nothing in his novels can be taken seriously as a starting point for real public policy discussions. Come on.
        zdragnar 4y ago
        That's just ad hominem. As I've been saying, I don't even 100% agree with them. I do, however, find some value in the idea that weaponized robotics should have failsafes against human instructions to commit violence. Again, consider the garage door example. You push a button, the garage door closes. If something should trigger a safety sensor, the garage door reverses rather than crushing whatever tripped the sensor. How many times have police been involved in shootings where the body camera was present but not running, or the recording was "lost"? I think it is perfectly reasonable to insist on more safety measures, such as failsafes against the robot firing its weapons if it isn't recording or detects interference in the recording and backup mechanisms. This is something I hadn't fully considered when I reviewed the three laws; if you go back to my first comment on the thread, I had initially been of mind to dismiss it.

> You can never hold the robot accountable. It's in direct violation of asimov's laws where it's intentionally harming humans. It's remote controlled by a cop. There's no AI.

aliqot 4y ago

It's not asimov's laws of AI, it's the laws of robotics.

feet 4y ago
And those laws are not actual laws in the eyes of the government, why would they care
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
SimonPStevens 4y ago
Firstly Asimov's laws aren't inviolable physical laws. They were just fictional idea that were suggested could be programmed into robots as a plot device in his books. The stories were frequently about unexpected side effect caused by intersections of the laws and specific situations that caused some kind of ambiguity in how they should be followed. Real world robots could be programmed with or without them, or with entirely different behavioural 'laws'. Secondly, the 'laws' were about behaviour that applies mostly to the AI side of things, the fact they are referred to as laws of robotics is mostly immaterial, they are about behaviour rules for AI.
zdragnar 4y ago
I was going to disagree, but re-reading the laws would mean that the robot would be required to be capable of overriding any input command from a human which might cause it to harm another human. I'm inclined to agree that violating this is generally a bad idea. I don't know that I would go so far as to make it a law, as I am not a pacifist and would prefer a robot to retain the capability to override the first law exclusively in the interest of obeying the second law, when there is an audit trail of commands given such that someone- whether the robot or the human behind the robot- can be held to account.
- nradov 4y ago
  You've got to be kidding. Law enforcement robots are completely remote controlled by a human operator. They have no capability to override an input command, or even understand what harm to a human means. We're talking about the real world here, not science fiction. The robots have video cameras so those recordings can be used to hold the human operator to account.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    No, this thread is talking about whether or not violating asimov's supposed laws are a Bad Idea. Naturally, the current implementation is a long, long way from complying with those concepts. The real question, for today and now, should be: Should we be focusing on implementing more safety measures (getting us closer to the principles behind the laws) or should we deploy what we have in a situation where they can be used for violence? Are the video feeds from the robots recorded? Are those recordings accessible to the person manipulating the robot, or their direct superiors? Are there backups in case those "get lost"? Are there on-board backups in case of network loss? Some sort of black-box maybe? Can the robot's weapons be deployed if the recording is not in progress? Even if the robot itself doesn't have an independent will, it can still be equipped with safeguards. Hell, automatic doors almost always have sensors that prevent the door from crushing something if it is in the way of the door closing. Surely we should be more stringent with weaponized robots than we are with garage doors.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Asimov was just a mediocre author, nothing more. Nothing in his novels can be taken seriously as a starting point for real public policy discussions. Come on.
      - zdragnar 4y ago
        That's just ad hominem. As I've been saying, I don't even 100% agree with them. I do, however, find some value in the idea that weaponized robotics should have failsafes against human instructions to commit violence. Again, consider the garage door example. You push a button, the garage door closes. If something should trigger a safety sensor, the garage door reverses rather than crushing whatever tripped the sensor. How many times have police been involved in shootings where the body camera was present but not running, or the recording was "lost"? I think it is perfectly reasonable to insist on more safety measures, such as failsafes against the robot firing its weapons if it isn't recording or detects interference in the recording and backup mechanisms. This is something I hadn't fully considered when I reviewed the three laws; if you go back to my first comment on the thread, I had initially been of mind to dismiss it.