An eminent roboticist is warning the people of Earth that we must prepare defenses against the rise of the robots. But for once it isn't Dr Cyboz doing so from the top of an overloading Cyber-Tower - in fact, he hasn't even built the rebelling robots. And an article in the journal Science hardly counts as a desperate rallying cry.
The scientist in question is Professor Noel Sharkey of the University
of Sheffield, who's noticed that there are something like five and a
half million robots in action in the private sector and said "Crikey,
that's a lot." Especially since there are expected to be more than
twice that by 2010, because if there's one thing the movies have taught
us it's that a geometrically increasing population of robots is nothing
to worry about.
Prof Sharkey's point is that while public interest in robotics has
increased, the public's protection against them hasn't - and we're not
talking desperate bands of fleshy rebels, we're talking about the real
weaponry of the modern age: legislation. The only legal framework
applied to robotics is the usual "try not to build anything that
actively kills people" boilerplate, and while that's a very good rule
it hardly covers the complexity of human-robot interactions.
So far there haven't been too many problems because the early-adopters
that have machines in the home tends to be tech-savvy - they're not the
kind of people who need boldface instructions like "DO NOT TAKE A BATH
WITH YOUR ROBOT WHILE JUGGLING CHAINSAWS." Besides, there's only so
much damage a vacuum cleaner can do. But with increasingly interactive
robots on the way, Sharkey foresees serious psychological issues in the
offing and urges consideration of the moral and ethical factors.
A problem with this is that the leading source of robotic funding is
the military, whose ethical factors tend to start with "Will it kill
them quickly?" and end with "If not, will we get caught?" Even the
makers of your rascally Roomba are deeply into defense. That's not
necessarily a bad thing - of all the employers in the wold, the army
are the ones we'd most like to use machines instead of people (unless
you're volunteering to get shot at while clearing minefields).
The real problem is that there's a real distance between realising the
importance of some Laws of Robotics and making them actually happen.
As long as there are defense dollars and private sector payoffs to be
had, you need more muscle than "actually being the beardies who build
the things" to get a say in the result. Governments simply won't get
involved fast enough until after the first accident or ten.
Machines are going to be great, and robots will help in a million
different ways - but if you actually want to be safe, you may have to
go hide under Crystal Mountain. We hear John Connor is looking for
some extra help.
Posted by Luke McKinney.
Scientist warning http://www.physorg.com/news148832430.html
0 comentários:
Enviar um comentário