"New technology often raises new ethical questions -- and those questions only multiply as technology advances.
Up until now, technology has largely remained dependent on action by a user, often in a particular setting. But in the age of co-robots, devices are breaking free of that model, interacting with people other than their users, and with other pieces of technology. They're also beginning to act in ways beyond what their users -- or even their programmers -- have determined. That creates the possibility of more adaptable and useful robots, but also raises new questions.
“Co-robots are robots that interact with humans in more complex, social ways," said Patrick Lin, an associate professor of philosophy and the director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. "They can work and move alongside us, not just on highways but in our neighborhoods and homes. As robots go out into the world, the moral and ethical challenges change."
As robots become increasingly integrated into daily life and give people abilities that would have been considered “superpowers” not long ago, researcher Lin says now is the time for scientists, policymakers, industry representatives, and the public to start thinking through the ethical dilemmas they raise. Lin and his group are funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in support of the National Robotics Initiative.
"Once drones, cars, and other co-robots are living among us, these technological superpowers will challenge our basic values, such as privacy, due process, liberty and more."
The role of an ethics researcher, Lin said, is not necessarily to answer all these questions, but to help society prepare for what's next.
“It’s not so much to stop research as it is to guide responsible innovation, which seems better than a public backlash after a new technology is introduced. Ethics provides an important framework to tackle these challenges and make sure the co-robots work for us.”
As researchers continue to explore those issues, Lin described five categories of ethical considerations that could help guide the adoption of co-robots.
1. Research and development practices
How should industry and society govern the development and testing of technology? When and how should regulators have input into technological design that affects the broader public?
With cutting-edge technology now present in everyday life, how can society make sure that developers can innovate while the public remains safe?
“As our world becomes increasingly connected, technology’s effects on us can also be more direct, physical and impactful than before,” Lin said. “This may create new obligations for developers as they test their technologies out in the real world.”
2. Morality and the robot
Nearly seven decades ago, Isaac Asimov was one of the first to consider robot morality when he laid out the Three Laws of Robotics in the novel, “I, Robot.”
One: A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm.
Two: A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Three: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not interfere with the First or Second Law.
These laws seem reasonable, but real life leads to much more complicated situations. What if, for example, a self-driving car faces a crash situation where at least one person will be hurt no matter what it does?
“Risk trade-offs are everywhere in driving,” Lin said, “from the obvious life and death choices to everyday decisions that may increase risk to others, such as moving toward the edge of your lane to stay clear of a big truck.”
Researchers believe self-driving cars will reduce accidents and prove safer than those now on the road, but even autonomous machines won’t always be able to avoid causing injury. If a co-robot must make a choice that will kill someone, how does it decide whom to kill?
Another major ethical and legal question underlying this issue is whether the driver, the car company or the programmer who wrote the code far in advance in a distant location will be held liable.
A video Lin created for TED-Ed gives concrete and dramatic examples of how tricky these choices are."