Truly fascinating. The only strange thing is how the article starts with HAL’s dilemma and then quickly dismisses it mid-section:  One way of dealing with these difficult questions is to avoid them altogether, by banning autonomous battlefield robots and requiring cars to have the full attention of a human driver at all times. Campaign groups such as the International Committee for Robot Arms Control have been formed in opposition to the growing use of drones. But autonomous robots could do much more good than harm. Robot soldiers would not commit rape, burn down a village in anger or become erratic decision-makers amid the stress of combat. Driverless cars are very likely to be safer than ordinary vehicles, as autopilots have made planes safer. Sebastian Thrun, a pioneer in the field, reckons driverless cars could save 1m lives a year. Instead, society needs to develop ways of dealing with the ethics of robotics—and get going fast. Robots wouldn’t be irrational and would thus be safer than many human counterparts, but that’s precisely what led HAL to his morbid conclusion: humans are innately dangerous and have to be protected from themselves. To take the car example, a sophisticated-enough robot might prevent us from driving altogether, because accidents are bound to happen, and when they do, someone is going to get hurt. Unless we envision a future where robots control every single aspect of our lives because any situation is potentially dangerous, I’m not sure that’s a good thing.  So while I totally agree that it is essential we develop robot ethics, I don’t think we can easily dismiss the idea that robot rationality isn’t always the best route.  theeconomist: Tomorrow’s cover today: as robots grow more autonomous, society needs to develop rules to manage them.
View Separately

Truly fascinating. The only strange thing is how the article starts with HAL’s dilemma and then quickly dismisses it mid-section: 

One way of dealing with these difficult questions is to avoid them altogether, by banning autonomous battlefield robots and requiring cars to have the full attention of a human driver at all times. Campaign groups such as the International Committee for Robot Arms Control have been formed in opposition to the growing use of drones. But autonomous robots could do much more good than harm. Robot soldiers would not commit rape, burn down a village in anger or become erratic decision-makers amid the stress of combat. Driverless cars are very likely to be safer than ordinary vehicles, as autopilots have made planes safer. Sebastian Thrun, a pioneer in the field, reckons driverless cars could save 1m lives a year.

Instead, society needs to develop ways of dealing with the ethics of robotics—and get going fast.

Robots wouldn’t be irrational and would thus be safer than many human counterparts, but that’s precisely what led HAL to his morbid conclusion: humans are innately dangerous and have to be protected from themselves. To take the car example, a sophisticated-enough robot might prevent us from driving altogether, because accidents are bound to happen, and when they do, someone is going to get hurt. Unless we envision a future where robots control every single aspect of our lives because any situation is potentially dangerous, I’m not sure that’s a good thing. 

So while I totally agree that it is essential we develop robot ethics, I don’t think we can easily dismiss the idea that robot rationality isn’t always the best route. 

theeconomist:

Tomorrow’s cover today: as robots grow more autonomous, society needs to develop rules to manage them.

191 Notes/ Hide

  1. freeklenten reblogged this from christafo
  2. dentist-in-colorado-springs reblogged this from theeconomist
  3. cleoxsimone reblogged this from theeconomist
  4. timecubed reblogged this from theeconomist and added:
    Vaguely disturbing.
  5. jeremyau reblogged this from theeconomist
  6. natoya reblogged this from dreamhampton1
  7. mariamolinari reblogged this from onepercentaboutanything
  8. worldinnovationforum reblogged this from theeconomist and added:
    We were just chatting with the folks at #innochat about this new issue of The Economist. The real question is how do we...
  9. asenseoftech reblogged this from theeconomist
  10. onepercentaboutanything reblogged this from alicestregatta
  11. leapmind reblogged this from launchprocedure
  12. dwv reblogged this from theeconomist
  13. flyingmunky reblogged this from picardwouldtotallyrulekirk
  14. picardwouldtotallyrulekirk reblogged this from theeconomist and added:
    Terrifying. Listen to Asimov, people!
  15. gravalicious reblogged this from theeconomist
  16. rosamour reblogged this from theeconomist
  17. launchprocedure reblogged this from cyborgorgy
  18. neunetz reblogged this from theeconomist
  19. prestia reblogged this from theeconomist
  20. lesniko reblogged this from dreamhampton1
  21. redfox8855 reblogged this from theeconomist
  22. cyborgorgy reblogged this from betadad
  23. shisaa reblogged this from wateringgoodseeds and added:
    HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING?? Turns out Isaac Asimov was actually a time traveler from the future, trying to help us not...
  24. f1at reblogged this from theeconomist
  25. roomfouronefive reblogged this from serendipityandsuch
  26. aurelienbrd reblogged this from theeconomist and added:
    Truly fascinating. The only strange thing is how the article starts with HAL’s dilemma and then quickly dismisses it...
  27. beingmeghan reblogged this from metahumanist and added:
    Considering the top headlines this week we should probably just focus on teaching people right from wrong. Anyway, the...
  28. myrthablackswan reblogged this from theeconomist and added:
    Yes, The Economist. Yes.