Autonomous Robots should never be allowed to be violent except in warfare. And then those who are send in robots, their programmers, and engineers should be held responsible. A General who decides to "send in T1000s" better be sure that the robots under his command can be trusted.
Nonautonomous robots are just remote controlled devices. The person using it should be held responsible.
TASER has already has already weathered some controversy over their devices (check the comments on this post). But they can always blame the user for abusing their product if something happens. But TASER would have nowhere to hide if their autonomous robot tases someone to death.
This is a bad, bad idea. This project is not going to go well for TASER. I should probably short their stock.
I think it is completely unreasonable to blame a programmer for the failure of an autonomous robot if the capabilities were well advertised.
The blame is always on the person deploying the robot, tele-op or not.
I really don't see how this differs from, say, how responsible a police department is for the actions of its officers.
How about we draw an analogy with a robot that is 100% autonomous once deployed: a cruise missile. They aren't used without incredible amounts of testing an verification that should move accountability from the creators to the users. They can be destroyed mid-flight, but they are largely trusted to do the job.
They also allow pilots to remain a safe distance from the harm.
You might disagree with the reason a cruise missile is fired, but it isn't universally a bad idea to use them in place of bombing runs.
And just to repeat myself: the alternative to a tele-operated robot with a TASER is a cop with a TASER. Which one is more likely to act emotionally, the person in the line of fire or the operator 100 yds from the scene?
Comments
Note that PackBot are not police bots. They're too expensive right now. But iRobot is developing the SUGV, which might be better for police.
Also note that the alternative to TASER equiped robots include humans in harms way, impotent robots, or leathal robots.
Given those choices, non-lethal methods of giving tele-operated robots some agency is the best plan.
Posted by: ivankirigin
|
July 9, 2007 11:39 AM
Autonomous Robots should never be allowed to be violent except in warfare. And then those who are send in robots, their programmers, and engineers should be held responsible. A General who decides to "send in T1000s" better be sure that the robots under his command can be trusted.
Nonautonomous robots are just remote controlled devices. The person using it should be held responsible.
TASER has already has already weathered some controversy over their devices (check the comments on this post). But they can always blame the user for abusing their product if something happens. But TASER would have nowhere to hide if their autonomous robot tases someone to death.
This is a bad, bad idea. This project is not going to go well for TASER. I should probably short their stock.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon
|
July 9, 2007 12:44 PM
I think it is completely unreasonable to blame a programmer for the failure of an autonomous robot if the capabilities were well advertised.
The blame is always on the person deploying the robot, tele-op or not.
I really don't see how this differs from, say, how responsible a police department is for the actions of its officers.
How about we draw an analogy with a robot that is 100% autonomous once deployed: a cruise missile. They aren't used without incredible amounts of testing an verification that should move accountability from the creators to the users. They can be destroyed mid-flight, but they are largely trusted to do the job.
They also allow pilots to remain a safe distance from the harm.
You might disagree with the reason a cruise missile is fired, but it isn't universally a bad idea to use them in place of bombing runs.
And just to repeat myself: the alternative to a tele-operated robot with a TASER is a cop with a TASER. Which one is more likely to act emotionally, the person in the line of fire or the operator 100 yds from the scene?
Posted by: ivankirigin
|
July 9, 2007 01:01 PM