See also: “Jerry was a Man” “Underpeople” “Uplift”

and Crichton’s cautionary tale concerning
experimenters willing to set artificial evolution
to work, with unpredictable, hopefully profitable
outcome; Not so far in the future as one would wish.

And that is, that people have a tendency to forget that the machines are just machines, and do, literally, exactly what they are instructed to do. Often with unexpected and sometimes undesired results.

But that’s not really new ground, either – should have read the fine print in the owner’s/user’s manual (or) should have put a warning label on that!

There’s an unfortunate side effect to Dr. Asimov’s choice of the term ‘robot’ for his fables, and the utopian ‘Three Laws of Robotics’.

The side effect is that most people now frame their consideration of the topic via that paradigm. Which is, to use a phrase, ‘science fiction’, with the emphasis on ‘fiction’.

Asimov’s exploration of ‘robots’ and the extrapolation of the situational consequences of the ‘Three Laws’ provided a wealth of material, no doubt. A closer analysis of what he was -really- describing, in 1940′s, 1950′s, and 1960′s familiar lay terminology were actually extreme and often ridiculously over-simplified explorations of the impact of artificial intelligence – not merely of a world (or worlds) populated by metal men doing human bidding. But then, most people seem to have become fascinated by the props, as opposed to the parables provided.

As such, for most situations, the world of Asimov is a distractionary, albeit often entertaining, red herring.

I’d have to go with Duckula here, and point out that, for the foreseeable future, ‘robots’ and other available automata, regardless of level of sophistication, are not really that much different from toasters – or shouldn’t be, in the eyes of the law. For one very simple reason – unless or until actual artificial intelligence is achieved, i.e. an artifice capable of performing the abstract analysis and application of judgement to reach a conclusion independent of something it is directly programmed to do – then the machines themselves bear no more ‘fault’ than a roller skate, or a can opener. Used as designed, or mis-used; well or faultily designed. Foreseeable or unforeseeable consequences. Ultimately, where the human is involved, and their actions, are what count. Does anyone have any question of wether the toaster of the person who tosses it, plugged in, into the tub with granny is to blame for the result?

These concepts are fairly well hashed out, and pretty straight forward, once the distractionary “new, improved, and even SHINIER” noise level is dispensed with.

Just my technically inclined but lay legal ‘opinion’.

The discussion can be either re-energized or re-directed when the machines pass a Turing test.

Right now, computers (internet, program, and interactive toys) are replacing humans as educators, because they do a much better job at delivering canned presentations, and teaching the middle. As the computers get smarter, they’ve do an even better job. If the smart machine misses a learning disability, or diagnoses hearing loss as laziness (something humans do routinely), who is at fault?

Robots will replace human prison guards. Human prisoners will be shuffled like mail. Safer for guards and for the prisoners. When somebody dies because the machine couldn’t do something that human guards couldn’t do (like rescue the guy playing basketball in the courtyard from getting stabbed), who is at fault?

CountDuckula: I’m sorry, but why are robots some kind of magic thing not covered by existing products liability law? When the robot electrocutes your grandmother in the bathroom you sue the manufacturer/designer. We already worked all this out, actually. More generally, why does everyone seem to think a robot is anything more than a complicated machine? IT’S JUST A MACHINE, FOLKS, even if it looks like a person and has a speaker in its mouth that can make human noises. You don’t blame your toaster for burning your bread. It was either your fault for leaving it in too long or it was the manufacturer’s fault for building a faulty toaster. Anything else is mysticism.

What differentiates robots from other machines is that they are more-or-less autonomous and can interact with a physical environment with a relatively high degree of sophistication. I think evolutionary algorithms as part of robotic control systems pose potentially interesting questions of liability depending on the parameters (though as a layman I could be totally off-base).

XKCD: http://xkcd.com/534/

More generally, why does everyone seem to think a robot is anything more than a complicated machine? IT’S JUST A MACHINE, FOLKS, even if it looks like a person and has a speaker in its mouth that can make human noises. You don’t blame your toaster for burning your bread. It was either your fault for leaving it in too long or it was the manufacturer’s fault for building a faulty toaster. Anything else is mysticism.

He didn’t want to write a Frankenstein, or a slave-uprising story, or any of the other variants on robot-as-monster, so he made his robots into the perfect servants.

Towards the end of his career, he loosened up a bit, and explored some of the implications if breaking or weakening the Laws. The Foundation sequels tie into the Robot stories by way of the ‘Zeroth’ law, which expresses the Ultimate Collectivist Thesis that it’s OK to harm a human if it prevents harm to “Humanity”.

It is a more adaptable/flexible truck/fork lift/electric toothbrush.

So legally it should be treated the same.

Now if one wishes to declare it has free will – that sounds more like a question of philosophy or theology, than law.

To raise a more interesting question (to me): What if someone takes an animal and mixes some human genes in. At what point is that creature an “animal” and when is it “human”? After all, people in persistent vegetative state, or babies born with extreme brain damage, are still considered human. What if a pig/human hybrid was able to complete the human 5th grade?

Or a chimpanzee/human hybrid, since we have something like 97% common genes.

Could a dolphin/human hybrid enter (and win) Olympics swimming? Nobel prizes? Be liable for murder?

Many people feel that the media can lead people in different ideological directions. We are Smith College students in a Senior Political Psychology Seminar and we want to invite you to take our survey. We are investigating the relationship between media coverage and political information. If you take our short, confidential survey you can choose to be entered into a raffle for a $50 gift certificate to Amazon.com. If you are interested, follow this link to Surveymonkey.com

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=T4JLkCcNbd7TRexboclKxA_3d_3d