Accelerating Future Transhumanism, AI, nanotech, the Singularity, and extinction risk.


Missing: Robot Ethics Charter

Researching the current state of "roboethics" (a lame term that marginalizes "AI ethics", a more-relevant superset of roboethics), I find a bunch of references to a South Korean project to draft a Robot Ethics Charter. All these references occur in March 2007, and they promised the ethics charter would be released in April 2007 and subsequently adopted by the government. However, I can't find it anywhere. Anyone have a clue about where it went? One article summarized the effort as follows:

The prospect of intelligent robots serving the general public brings up an unprecedented question of how robots and humans should be expected to treat each other. South Korea's Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy has decided that a written code of ethics is in order.

Starting last November, a team of five members, including a science-fiction writer, have been drafting a Robot Ethics Charter to address and prevent "robot abuse of humans and human abuse of robots." Some of the sensitive subject areas covered in the charter include human addiction to robots, humans treating robots like a spouse, and prohibiting robots from ever hurting a human.

Critics of the charter say that the charter is premature and may not have a practical application once robots are really an integral part of society. Says Mark Tilden, the designer of the toy RoboSapien, "From experience, the problem is that giving robots morals is like teaching an ant to yodel. We're not there yet, and as many of Asimov's stories show, the conundrums robots and humans would face would result in more tragedy than utility."

"Asimov" refers to science-fiction author Isaac Asimov, who created a robot code of ethics for one of his stories. His Three Rules were: (1) a robot could not hurt a human or through inaction allow a human to be harmed, (2) a robot must obey human orders unless those orders would make it violate rule number one, and (3) a robot must protect itself unless that protection would violate the first two rules. These apparently served as inspiration for the South Korean Robot Ethics Charter.

However, South Korea's Ministry of Information and Communication plans to have a robot in every household by 2020. "Personally, I wish to accomplish that objective by 2010," said Oh Sang Rok, head of the ministry's project.

Personally, I think Asimov's Three Laws are a terrible inspiration for any roboethics code. The laws were created to be used as a plot device. When they disintegrated, a story came out of it. Unfortunately, they've actually been taken seriously as a possible solution to the problem of human-unfriendly robots and AI for many decades now. But Asimov himself said, "There was just enough ambiguity in the Three Laws to provide the conflicts and uncertainties required for new stories, and, to my great relief, it seemed always to be possible to think up a new angle out of the 61 words of the Three Laws."

Back in summer 2004, the Singularity Institute launched a website project, "Three Laws Unsafe", a critique of Asimov's Laws riding on the publicity of the "I, Robot" movie. Check out the articles section, which includes a submission by myself.

But yeah, anyone know where that Robot Ethics Charter is, or the names of anyone who was working on it? We need to get our magnifying glasses out and scrutinize that shit.

Filed under: AI, robotics Leave a comment
Comments (17) Trackbacks (1)
  1. I might also mention that the “three-laws” didn’t work particularly well in the novels either (or in the movie, for that matter.)

  2. I was looking for this, too. I still can’t find it. Maybe it died.

  3. Hello, exactly what a reliable information within your blog listed here The public is definitely the firm foundation for charity Regards, Verna Vukich

  4. hello!,I really like your writing so so much! percentage we be in contact extra approximately your article on AOL? I need an expert in this space to resolve my problem. May be that is you! Taking a look ahead to see you.

  5. I’ve been recently wondering about the identical point myself lately. Pleased to see a person on the same wavelength! Nice article.

  6. […] experienced a inquire into my post Never Pray For Patience, and i also wanted to share her comment and my response: I watched Evan Almighty, and will not […]

  7. An rousing speech will be couturier annotate. I cogitate that you should pen writer on this matter, it most likely are not a holy bailiwick yet mostly fill are not sufficiency in order to speak upon specified subject areas. To the succeeding. Cheers like your Khmer Karaoke Superstars » Somnangblogs.

  8. This website site does have plenty of invaluable information about it! Thank you sharing it by himself.

  9. Some truly fantastic information, Gladiola I discovered this.

  10. What’s up, I just wanted to tell you, you’re wrong. Your article doesn’t make any sense.

  11. Outstanding post. the challenge may be meticulously revealed, ingested the very best strategy to obtain advice and so forth. If greater numbers of this kind of posts, I’m just longing for which will.

  12. Thanks for your submission. I would like to comment that the very first thing you will need to carry out is find out if you really need credit repair. To do that you will have to get your hands on a copy of your credit history. That should really not be difficult, ever since the government mandates that you are allowed to receive one cost-free copy of your credit report yearly. You just have to ask the right individuals. You can either look at website with the Federal Trade Commission or maybe contact one of the major credit agencies directly.

  13. Wow, superb weblog structure! How long have you been running the blog with regard to? you make running a blog glance uncomplicated. The entire look of your web site is fantastic, as smartly since the content!

  14. Its wonderful as your other posts: D, thankyou for putting up. It takes less time and energy to do things right than to go into detail why you did it wrong. by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

  15. Can I simply say what a comfort to uncover an individual who actually understands what they’re discussing on the net. You actually know how to bring an issue to light and make it important. More and more people should look at this and understand this side of the story. I can’t believe you aren’t more popular given that you most certainly have the gift.

  16. however, the actual weight will vary depending on the size of shoe. Average price as of fall 2009 was $100.

  17. Hi there, I found your site by means of Google while searching for a comparable subject, your site came up, it seems good. I have bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

Leave a comment