[Robotgroup] South Korean "Robot Ethics Charter"

[Vern Graner]

Royce Hart wrote:
 > These laws include prohibiting robots from harming humans
 > (actively or through > inaction), requiring robots to obey
 > human orders (unless they conflict with the first law),
 > and requiring robots to protect themselves (unless this
 > conflicts with the first two laws).

Hmm sounds vaguely familiar...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

Strange, when the whole point of the story is to show how those laws 
CANT WORK. Example: "Through inaction allow a human to come to harm"

Ok, how do we define "Harm" for the robot? How about someone with high 
blood pressure eating a greasy cheezeburger? Or how about smoking? What 
about dangerous activity that could lead to harm? Should the robot stop 
you from skydiving? Driving? Walking? Lots of stuff could either 
represent harm or be a path to it.

The bottom line is these "laws" won't work since they contain 
indefinable items that have subjective meaning, not absolute meaning. 
Besides, we can't even agree on a definition of ROBOT! How can we make 
laws for a thing we can't define in the first place?? :)

Vern

-- 
Vern Graner CNE/CNA/SSE    | "If the network is down, then you're
Senior Systems Engineer    | obviously incompetent so why are we
Texas Information Services | paying you? Of course, if the network
http://www.txis.com        | is up, then we obviously don't need
Austin Office 512 328-8947 | you, so why are we paying you?" ©VLG