Patrick Lin is the director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group, based at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, where he is also an associate philosophy professor. He has published several books and papers in the field of technology ethics, especially with respect to nanotechnology, human enhancement, robotics, cyberwarfare, space exploration, and other areas. He teaches courses in ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of technology, and philosophy of law. Dr. Lin has appeared in international media such as BBC, Forbes, National Public Radio (US), Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, Reuters, Science Channel, Slate, The Atlantic, The Christian Science Monitor, The Times (UK), Wired, and others (see this page for more).
Dr. Lin is currently or has been affiliated with several other leading organizations, including: Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society, Stanford's School of Engineering (CARS), New America Foundation, UN Institute for Disarmament Research, University of Notre Dame, US Naval Academy, and Dartmouth College. He earned his BA from University of California at Berkeley, and MA and PhD from University of California at Santa Barbara.
Cross-posted from The Atlantic.
In the year 2025, a rogue state--long suspected of developing biological weapons--now seems intent on using them against U.S. allies and interests. Anticipating such an event, we have developed a secret "counter-virus" that could infect and destroy their stockpile of bioweapons. Should we use it?
I am pleased to announce that our edited volume Robot Ethics: The Social and Ethical Implications of Robotics has now been released by MIT Press.
The preface and table of contents are below (incl. link to Ryan Calo's chapter on privacy):
“Nothing is stranger to man but his own image.”
– Karel Čapek in Rossum’s Universal Robots (1921)
Here's a preview of my forthcoming paper on robot ethics (with co-authors Keith Abney and George Bekey) in Artificial Intelligence journal, one of the best in its field.
In the first of this two-article series, we saw how augmented reality (AR) is causing friction between individual liberty and public interest. AR appmakers are being required by some parks to obtain a permit before they can “put” virtual objects in those public spaces, given the sudden crowds the apps can cause.
This article looks at the same core dilemma with another technology: automated driving.
With very rare exceptions, automakers are famously coy about crash dilemmas. They don’t want to answer questions about how their self-driving cars would respond to weird, no-win emergencies. This is understandable, since any answer can be criticized—there’s no obvious solution to a true dilemma, so why play that losing game?
This is a guest post. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent positions of IEEE Spectrum or the IEEE.
Last week, the Dallas police killed a suspected gunman with a bomb-delivering robot. It was a desperate measure for desperate times: five law enforcement officers were killed and several more wounded before the shooter was finally cornered.
"“Sometimes, you can’t separate the technology from its use, and this can make a technology unethical,” he told io9. “For instance, nukes are inherently indiscriminate and inhumane, and there’s no morally defensible use of them. It’s not clear that this is the case with killer robots, but it’s possible—I think there needs to be more investigation.”
From a moral perspective, Lin says he’s sympathetic to the ban on killer robots. But like Ackerman, he says it’s hard to imagine how that can happen.
"“This is going to set the tone for all social robots,” says philosopher Patrick Lin, who runs the Ethics and Emerging Sciences Group at California Polytechnic University and counsels automakers. “These are the first truly social robots to move around in society.”
"“The ethics are different for humans and machines,” says Patrick Lin, a philosophy professor at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. “For example, a military robot doesn’t have to shoot back at an enemy because there’s no imperative for self-preservation. If auto manufacturers want to play in this field, they’re going to be responsible for everything that happens on autopilot. Programmers will have to anticipate every problem and code for it. But when you face a true ethical dilemma, there is no consensus on the correct answer.”
"Dr Patrick Lin, director of ethics at California Polytechnic State University, wrote in 2014 that developing such a system "seems an awful lot like a targeting algorithm, similar to those for military weapons systems... this takes the robot-car industry down legally and morally dangerous paths.
Patrick Lin, an associate philosophy professor at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, makes the moral case for hacking back. Heather Roff, a visiting professor at the University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies, argues against allowing defensive hacking.
YES: If the State Can’t Offer Protection, Firms Need to Act
By Patrick Lin
Attendees will hear leading speakers, participate in interactive breakout sessions, and network with key innovators in this exciting field. Don't miss what's in store for the Automated Vehicles Symposium 2016.
Affiliate Scholars Bryant Walker Smith and Patrick Lin are confirmed speakers.
For more information, visit the conference website.
For more information and to register visit the event website.
Professor Patrick Lin discusses key ethical, legal, and policy challenges in cyberwarfare. This event is part of the “IT, Ethics, and Law” lecture series, co-sponsored by the High Tech Law Institute.
Self-driving cars are already cruising the streets today. And while these cars will ultimately be safer and cleaner than their manual counterparts, they can’t completely avoid accidents altogether. How should the car be programmed if it encounters an unavoidable accident? Patrick Lin navigates the murky ethics of self-driving cars.
SCOTT SIMON, HOST: