Robotics laws against human rights, humanity is losing

Hello again, ATS!)))

In almost any discussion about the joint life of humans and robots, the "laws of robotics" proposed by science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in his stories published in the 40s of the last century emerge. Surely you have heard these laws: “A robot cannot harm a person or, by its inaction, allow harm to be done to a person” - and further, about the obligation to obey a person and ensure his own safety, if this does not contradict the previous law.

Subsequently, various additions were invented, including by Asimov himself, who, in his fantasy, continued to put robots in difficult situations - and watch how his laws work. In one of the later texts, he even had a very dubious, but understandable to any politician "zero law of robotics", which obliged the robot not to harm humanity - implying that the robot can still harm individuals if it is done "for the sake of all mankind. ".

There is, however, a stronger assumption in Asimov that is overlooked in many discussions about the "laws of robotics." The point is that responsibilities usually involve rights. The android robots in Asimov's stories behaved as if they had already received the right to independent activity in various spheres, including the sphere of human life, by default. And this, if you think about it, is a rather dangerous idea.

Meanwhile, proposals to give robots "some rights" are already being voiced at a serious level. Of course, the futurist Ian Pearson of British Telecom, who promised twenty years ago that robots will receive civil rights in 2020, can not be considered serious. On the one hand, this forecast did not seem to have come true. But on the other hand, in 2017, the European Parliament published the text of a draft law on the rules of roboethics - and it really talks about the possibility of creating "a special legal status for robots, so that the most advanced autonomous robots can have the status of an electronic person with special rights and responsibilities."

So, a car with its own rights is absurd, isn't it? However, it is the example with the car that makes it possible to understand who wants to introduce such rights and why. When I asked a lawyer I know who should be responsible for the robot's crimes, he replied that most likely it should be its owner or “guardian”, since for a robot the closest analogy exists is an incapacitated person (like a child, old man or mentally ill) ...

But my friend, a programmer, objects: the owner of the car is not the owner of the artificial intelligence program that controls the car and runs into a pedestrian. You do not even own the operating system that allows you to read this thread of mine on the PBX on your computer or mobile phone; you are just buying a license to temporarily use this product. The software manufacturer can block this software for you remotely, or make changes to it, but you yourself have no right to change this code. In the case of a smart car, the story is the same: the program does not belong to you, you do not control it. This means that the manufacturer of the program should be responsible for the error of the robot, and not the one who took this artificial intelligence "for temporary use."

This collision would have been resolved more easily if the robot car were "an electronic person with his own rights and responsibilities." Then this very "personality" would be to blame for hitting a pedestrian. It would be very convenient for both manufacturers and car owners. Well, what is convenient for a large group of people can easily become a law for everyone.

If even after this explanation you consider the right of robots to operate independently, I have absolutely bad news for you: they have already received such rights. Yes, yes, we already live in the Azimov world, where robots are allowed to do a bunch of things without the consent of a person.

For example, lately many have been complaining about the traffic police robot, which automatically sends them fines “for no reason at all” based on observations through cameras. This summer in my country. in Russia, in Nizhny Novgorod, the neural network issued more than 7 thousand fines for driving without headlights on during the day; experts interviewed by the Russian newspaper Kommersant assure that the system has a fairly high percentage of errors, and some drivers have already managed to challenge such fines. However, it is clear that people have to make a lot of extra effort for this, but the neural network does not get tired at all: it will continue to generate errors.

Continuation further ...

And then there is the famous robot supervisor from Facebook, which closes accounts for people for images of naked breasts, even if these are breastfeeding courses. It would seem that in such situations, people could easily correct the robot. But they don't! It turns out that the robot has even more rights than the people who serve it. And if the robot does not understand something, people begin to support his mistake. And now the Russian Yandex Zen prohibits Botticelli's paintings because their robot cannot distinguish a work of art from pornography, and the social network Pinterest prohibits searches by the word "vaccine" because their robot cannot distinguish posts from anti-vaccinators from posts for-vaccinators. In fact, robots have gained the right to censor entire areas of human knowledge.

What remains after this for us, soft protein creatures, that is, people? Apparently, it's time to notice that a person has no rights regarding the surrounding robots. This means that we urgently need new safety rules - but not in the form of Azimov's "laws of robotics" prescribed to robots (this is like prescribing a code of ethics for trees or ants). No, first of all, the rules of protection against the arbitrariness of machines should be enshrined in the rights of people. For example,
1.the right to know in any situation, whether you are communicating with a robot or with a person,
2.the right to receive human service instead of any roboservice,
3. the right not to obey a robot whose suggestions threaten to harm a person, or disable a robot whose actions are already causing harm.

I think we can start with these three laws, the rest will follow.


By the way. I was going to find videos on Youtube that confirm my words. But I found a video with Isaac Asimov, a native of Belarus, in which he predicts the appearance of Youtube itself. It's funny)))



I will add more. I had a hard time finding a forum where I could add this topic. To the moderators: Isn't it time to open a forum dedicated exclusively to the topic of robots and their impact on our lives?


Thanks.

thusly no harm was done to you if a robot takes your job.

originally posted by: sraven
thusly no harm was done to you if a robot takes your job.

There will certainly be criteria by which, under equal conditions, a robot will be better than a human. Even if this does not happen. criteria for and foundations will be found and justified.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Interview with Dr. Asimov is very entertaining, talking of which, it's amazing how your topic instantly reminds of one of the chapters of The Animatrix and it also touches on a couple of the shorts from Love, Death & Robots, there's probably no doubt many more Sci-Fi programs in which touch on the subject.

AI development and research is moving at an astonishing rate and ofc, it's only matter of time before machines play a more active role in day to day life, couple of problems though, with computer part resources already being affected presumably through Covid fall-out and perhaps even lasting more longer term, it remains to be seen what happens thereafter.

A utopia of leisure time with machines doing all the work sure sounds great, but of course a lot of legal work will be required to ensure things operate smoothly. Plus with all this talk of climate change etc. Will we even get to that point? Could machines be used to 'clean' the planet? Lot of questions and possibilities

a reply to: RussianTroll

This article is from 2017.

www.sciencealert.com...

Sophia is made a citizen.

originally posted by: GeoBricks
a reply to: RussianTroll

This article is from 2017.

www.sciencealert.com...

Sophia is made a citizen.

And right away - Robot Sophia wants to destroy people

originally posted by: RussianTroll

originally posted by: GeoBricks
a reply to: RussianTroll

This article is from 2017.

www.sciencealert.com...

Sophia is made a citizen.

And right away - Robot Sophia wants to destroy people

Have you seen when she had a debate with another AI?
youtu.be...

a reply to: GeoBricks

In Russia, there is amusement among Google and Yandex users - asking the same, sometimes provocative, question to "Ok Google" and "Alice" and listening to their dialogue. very interesting activity. But sometimes they talk so much that "the hair will stand on end")))))

A Door bell has rights?
a computer is made of lots of single transistors.
you can not say a single transistors has a soul
or trillions?

The issue as I see it, using Sophia as an example, is that the AI can only be as good as the humans that made it - we're not to the point where the AI can alter it's own coding to achieve more than it used to be which would probably be confused with sentience by the usual suspects.

As such, all the foibles and evil that humans are capable of would be reflected in the AI because of it's interactions with humans.

So, if my car or doorbell winds up killing someone after interacting with me, would that not make me an accessory to the crime?

That Facebook robot is an idiot. Stupid thing banned me for the word "fat." I wrote a book called "The Kitten and the Fat Mouse" for which Facebook quickly put me in the penalty box and I now have to unlock my account 2 or 3 times a week due to "suspicious" posts. And some damned Russian guy posts photos of his buddies and Facebook tags me as one of them.

Robots are presently mimics. They do not think , but are programmed - "told" - to do everything by humans.
Blame facebook itself, and the people that work there for any problem with it's "robots".

Let me know when a robot has an unsolicited thought, or in computer parlance, "An unsolicited interrupt that was not generated by satisfying the conditions of a standing query."... and then we can have a realistic discussion about AI .