...life itself, will always find its own path. It routes around rules.
Chris Anderson - Public
It's interesting to see how Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics was totally shredded by the first wave of armed robots. Why? For lots of reasons (including the world not being run by science fiction writers), but partly because he never properly defined "robot"
"1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws."
Drones of course do #1 and #2, and now it looks like they will soon do #3, too. From the NY Review of Books:
"When an enemy radar “lights up” a US plane, the pilot has the right to fire first without waiting to be attacked. All fine and good. But then imagine that the aircraft involved is not a plane but a UAV:
If an unmanned plane flying near the border of another nation is fired on, does it have the right to fire back at that nation’s missile sites and the humans behind them, even in peacetime? What about the expanded interpretation, the right to respond to hostile intent, where the drone is just targeted by radar? Is the mere threat enough for the drone to fire first at the humans below?
The answers depend on how wide the “self” in self-defense is defined."
When you think of it, a landmine violates 1 and 2, too. It's an autonomous killing machine. But is it a robot? Who knows. That's the problem with trying to come up with pat rule to govern technology. Technology, like life itself, will always find its own path. It routes around rules.
"1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws."
Drones of course do #1 and #2, and now it looks like they will soon do #3, too. From the NY Review of Books:
"When an enemy radar “lights up” a US plane, the pilot has the right to fire first without waiting to be attacked. All fine and good. But then imagine that the aircraft involved is not a plane but a UAV:
If an unmanned plane flying near the border of another nation is fired on, does it have the right to fire back at that nation’s missile sites and the humans behind them, even in peacetime? What about the expanded interpretation, the right to respond to hostile intent, where the drone is just targeted by radar? Is the mere threat enough for the drone to fire first at the humans below?
The answers depend on how wide the “self” in self-defense is defined."
When you think of it, a landmine violates 1 and 2, too. It's an autonomous killing machine. But is it a robot? Who knows. That's the problem with trying to come up with pat rule to govern technology. Technology, like life itself, will always find its own path. It routes around rules.
The New York Review of Books. Advanced Search. Home. Events/Calendar. Current Issue; NYRblog. Podcasts. Print Archive; Classifieds; Shop. Illustration Galleries. Subscribe. Gift Subscriptions; Renew S...
+16
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire