- Количество слайдов: 106
Do we need robot morality? 1
WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE? 1. Pragmatic definition of intelligence: “an intelligent system is a system with the ability to act appropriately (or make an appropriate choice or decision) in an uncertain environment. ” – An appropriate action (or choice) is that which maximizes the probability of successfully achieving the mission goals (or the purpose of the system) 2. Intelligence need not be at the human level
Human-Robot Interaction intelligence morality Consciousness? 3
Robot Morality is a relatively new research area which is becoming very popular because of military and assistive robotics.
WHY ROBOT MORALITY ? Ø Robots are becoming technically extremely sophisticated. These robots live in human environment and can harm humans physically. Military unmanned vehicles are robots Ø The emerging robot is a machine with sensors, processors, and effectors able to perceive the environment, have situational awareness, make appropriate decisions, and act upon the environment Ø Various sensors: active and passive optical and ladar vision, acoustic, ultrasonic, RF, microwave, touch, etc. Ø Various effectors: propellers, wheels, tracks, legs, hybrids Space, air, ground, water
Ethical concerns: Robot behavior • How do we want our intelligent systems to behave? • How can we ensure they do so? • Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics: 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 orders given 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 Law. 6
Ethical concerns: Human behavior 1. Is it morally justified to create intelligent systems with these constraints? – As a secondary question, would it be possible to do so? 2. Should intelligent systems have free will? Can we prevent them from having free will? ? 3. Will intelligent systems have consciousness? (Strong AI) – If they do, will it drive them insane to be constrained by artificial ethics placed on them by humans? 4. If intelligent systems develop their own ethics and morality, will we like what they come up with? 7
Department of Defense (DOD) PATH TOWARD AUTONOMY
A POTPOURRI OF MILITARY ROBOTS Ø Many taxonomies have been used for robotic air, ground, and water vehicles: based on size, endurance, mission, user, C 3 link, propulsion, mobility, altitude, level of autonomy, etc.
All autonomous future military robots will need morality, household and assistive robots as well
WHICH TECHNOLOGIES ARE RELATED TO ROBOT MORALITY? Ø Various control system architectures: Ø deliberative, Ø reactive, Ø hybrid Ø Various command, control, and communications systems: Ø Ø Ø cable, fiber optic, RF, laser, acoustic Ø Various human/machine interfaces: Ø displays, Ø telepresence, Ø virtual reality Ø Various theories of intelligence and autonomy; Ø Ø Ø Evolutionary Probabilistic Learning Developmental Cognitive Can we build morality without intelligence?
Morality for non-military robots that deal directly with humans. The Tokyo University of Science: Saya
Robots that look human • "Robots that look human tend to be a big hit with young children and the elderly, " – Hiroshi Kobayashi, Tokyo University of Science professor and Saya's developer, said yesterday. • "Children even start crying when they are scolded. " 13
Human-Robot Interaction with human-like humanoid robots • "Simply turning our grandparents over to teams of robots abrogates our society's responsibility to each other, and encourages a loss of touch with reality for this already mentally and physically challenged population, „ – Kobayashi said. 14
Can robots replace humans? • Noel Sharkey, robotics expert and professor at the University of Sheffield, believes robots can serve as an educational aid in inspiring interest in science, but they can't replace humans. 15
Robot to help people? http: //news. xinhuanet. com/english/2009 -03/12/content_10995694. htm • Kobayashi says Saya is just meant to help people and warns against getting hopes up people too high for its possibilities. • "The robot has no intelligence. It has no ability to learn. It has no identity, " he said. "It is just a tool. „ 16
Mecha. Droyd Typ C 3 Business Design, Japan What kind of morality we expect from: - Robot for disabled? - Receptionist robot? - Robot housemaide? - Robot guide ? 19
Human Robot Interaction: Robots for elderly in Japan 20
Jobs for robots http: //uk. reuters. com/article/id. UKT 27506220080408 • TOKYO (Reuters) - Robots could fill the jobs of 3. 5 million people in graying Japan by 2025, – a thinktank says, helping to avert worker shortages as the country's population shrinks. 21
Robots to fill jobs in Japan • Japan faces a 16 percent slide in the size of its workforce by 2030 while the number of elderly will mushroom, the government estimates, raising worries about who will do the work in a country unused to, and unwilling to contemplate, large-scale immigration. 22
HR-Interaction in Japan Robots to fill jobs in Japan • The thinktank, the Machine Industry Memorial Foundation, says robots could help fill the gaps, ranging from microsized capsules that detect lesions to high-tech vacuum cleaners. 23
HR-Interaction in Japan Robots to fill jobs in Japan • Rather than each robot replacing one person, the foundation said in a report that robots could make time for people to focus on more important things. “ 24
What is more important than work? • What kind of „more important things“? • This is an ethical question. 25
using robots that monitor the health of older people in Japan „Japan could save 2. 1 trillion yen ($21 billion) of elderly insurance payments in 2025 by using robots that monitor the health of older people, so they don't have to rely on human nursing care, the foundation said in its report. 26
Plans for robot nursing in Japan • What are the consequences for relying on robot nursing? • This is an ethical question.
Assistive Robots • Caregivers would save more than an hour a day if robots: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. helped look after children, helped older people, did some housework reading books out loud helping bathe elderly
How children and elderly will respond? 1. How will children and elderly react to robots taking „care“ of them? 2. This is an ethical question.
Seniors in Japan – "Seniors are pushing back their retirement until they are 65 years old, – day care centers are being built so that more women can work during the day, – and there is a move to increase the quota of foreign laborers. – But none of these can beat the shrinking workforce, " • said Takao Kobayashi, who worked on the study.
HR-Interaction in Japan Seniors in Japan "Robots are important because they could help in some ways to alleviate such shortage of the labor force. "
HR-Interaction in Japan Seniors in Japan • How far will they alleviate such shortage of the labor force? • And with what consequences? • This is an ethical question.
HR-Interaction in Japan Seniors in Japan • Kobayashi said changes was still needed for robots to make a big impact on the workforce. • "There's the expensive price tag, the functions of the robots still need to improve, and then there are the mindsets of people, " he said. • "People need to have the will to use the robots. "
HR-Interaction in Japan Seniors in Japan The „mindsets of people“: This is THE ethical question!
First robots in Entertainment Ø Neologism derived from Czech noun "robota" meaning "labor" Ø Contrary to the popular opinion, not originated by (but first popularized by) Karel Capek, the author of RUR Ø Originated by Josef Capek, Karel’s older brother (a painter and writer) Ø “Robot” first appeared in Karel Capek’s play RUR, published in 1920 Ø Some claim that "robot" was first used in Josef Capek's short story Opilec (the Drunkard) published in the collection Lelio in 1917, but the word used in Opilec is "automat“ Ø Robots revolt against their human masters – a cautionary lesson now as then
WHAT IS A ROBOT? Ø Many taxonomies Ø Control taxonomy Ø Pre-programmed (automatons) Ø Remotely-controlled (telerobots) Ø Supervised autonomous Ø Autonomous Ø Operational medium taxonomy Ø Space Ø Air Ø Ground Ø Sea Ø Hybrid Ø Functional taxonomy Ø Military Ø Industrial Ø Household Ø Commercial Ø Etc.
Entertainment http: //www. thepartypups. co/
„Love robots“ in Japan http: //jankcl. wordpress. com/2007/08/12/lovecom-18/
EMA (Eternal Maiden Actualization) in Japan http: //www. fun-on. com/technology_robot_girlfriend. php What kind of intelligence and morality you would expect from an ideal robot for entertainment?
Why Ethics of Robots?
Why Ethics of Robots? 1. Robots behave according to rules we program 2. We are responsible for their behavior 3. But as they are „autonomous“ they can „decide“ what to do or not in a specific situation 4. This is the human/robot moral dilemma
Ethics of Robots: West and East Rougly speaking: 1. Europe: Deontology (Autonomy, Human Dignity, Europe: Privacy, Anthropocentrism): Scepticism with regard to robots 2. USA (and anglo-saxon tradition): Utilitarian Ethics: USA will robots make „us“ more happy? 3. Eastern Tradition (Buddhism): Robots as one more Eastern Tradition (Buddhism): partner in the global interaction of things
Ethics & Robots: West and East • Morality and Ethics: 1. Ethics as critical reflection (or problematization) of morality 2. Ethics is the science of morals as robotics is the science of robots
Concrete moral traditions • Different ontic or concrete historical moral traditions, for instance 1. in Japan: 1. Seken (trad. Japanese morality), 2. Shakai (imported Western morality) 3. Ikai (old animistic tradition) 2. In the „Far West“: 1. 2. 3. 4. Ethics of the Good (Plato, Aristotle), Christian Ethics, Utilitarian Ethics, Deontological Ethics (Kant)
Ethics & Robots: Ontological Dimensions • Ontological dimension: Being or (Buddhist) – Nothingness as the space of open possibilities that allow us to critizise ontic moralities • Always related to basic moods (like sadness, happiness, astonishment, …) – through which the uniqueness of the world and human existence is experienced (differently in different cultures)
Asimo‘s evolution http: //www. rob. cs. tu-bs. de/teaching/courses/seminar/Laufen_Mensch_vs_Roboter/
Asimo‘s evolution http: //www. rob. cs. tu-bs. de/teaching/courses/seminar/Laufen_Mensch_vs_Roboter/ If the robot looks like a human, do we have different expectations? Would you “kill” a robot car? Would you “kill” a robot insect that would react by squeaky noises and escape in panic? Would you “kill” a robot biped that would react by begging you to save his life?
Why Ethics of Robots?
Why Ethics of Robots? • Ethics is thinking about human rules of good/bad behavior: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Towards each other Towards non-human living beings Towards the environment Towards artificial products Towards other societies or nations Towards the God or gods, culture-depending
AA versus AC versus AE versus AI? • • Artificial Agency (AA) Artificial Consciousness (AC) Artificial Ethics (AE) Artificial Intelligence … our interaction with them; … and our ethical relation to them.
Artificial X • One kind of definition-schema: • Creating machines which perform in ways which require X when humans perform in those ways… – (or which justify the attribution of X? ) • ‘Outward’ performance, versus psychological reality ‘within’? X= Intelligence, = Life, = Morality, etc.
Artificial Consciousness • Artificial Consciousness (AC): creating machines which perform in ways which require consciousness when humans perform in those ways (? ) • Where is the psychological reality of consciousness in this? ‘functional’ versus ‘phenomenal’ consciousness?
Shallow and deep AC research • Shallow AC – developing functional replications of consciousness in artificial agents – Without any claim to inherent psychological reality • Deep AC – developing psychologically real (‘phenomenal’) consciousness
Continuum or divide? • Continuum or divide? (discrete or analog? ) – Is deep AC realizable using current computationally-based technologies (or does it require biological replications)? – Will it require Quantum Computing or biology-like computing? • Thin versus thick phenomenality Thin – (See S. Torrance ‘Two Concepts of Machine Phenomenality’, (to be submitted, JCS)
Real versus simulated AC an ethically significant boundary? 1. Psychologically real versus just simulated artificial consciousness… -> This appears to mark an ethically significant boundary (perhaps unlike the comparable boundary in AI? ) • Not to deny that debates like the Chinese Room have aroused strong the Chinese Room passions over many years… – Working in the area of AC – (unlike working in AI? ) – … puts special ethical responsibilities on shoulders of researchers
Techno-ethics • This takes us into the area of techno-ethics – – Reflection on the ethical responsibilities of those who are involved in technological R & D (including the technologies of artificial agents (AI, robotics, MC, etc. )) • Broadly, techno-ethics can be defined as: – Reflection on how we, as developers and users of technologies, …ought to use such technologies to best meet our existing ethical ends, within existing ethical frameworks – Much of the ethics of artificial agent research comes under the general techno-ethics umbrella
From techno-ethics to artificial ethics • What’s special about the artificial agent research is that the artificial agents so produced may count (in various senses) as ethical agents in their own right – This may involve a revision of our existing ethical conceptions in various ways – Particularly when we are engaged in research in (progressively deeper) artificial consciousness • Bearing this in mind, we need to distinguish between techno-ethics and artificial ethics – (The latter may overlap with the former) Techno-ethics – our responsibility for our creations Artificial ethics – what ethics we will put to future robots
Towards artificial ethics (AE) • A key puzzle in AE – Perhaps ethical reality (or real ethical status) goes together with psychological reality? ? Can a robot be ethical if he is not psychologically similar to you?
Shallow and deep AE • Shallow AE – • 1. Developing ways in which the artificial agents we produce can conform to, simulate, the ethical constraints we believe desirable 2. (Perhaps a sub-field of techno-ethics? ) You do not want your robot to hurt humans Deep AE – (or other robots? ) – Creating beings with inherent ethical status? • Rights of robots, rights of human “owners” of robots? • Responsibilities of robots, responsibilities of humans towards robots? • The boundaries between shallow and deep AE may be perceived as fuzzy – And may be intrinsically fuzzy…
Proliferation of new technologies in the world • A reason for taking this issue seriously: – AA, AC, etc. as potential mass-technologies • Tendency for successful technologies to proliferate across the globe – What if AC becomes a widely adopted technology? • This should raise questions both: 1. Every body would like to have a robot slave. – and of a kind specific to AE 2. Every educated/rich roman had a slave 3. Every professor in 19 century had a maid. – of a techno-ethical kind;
Instrumentality Instrumental versus intrinsic stance – Normally we take our technologies as our tools or instruments • Instrumental/intrinsic division in relation to psychological reality of consciousness? • As we progress towards deep AC there could be a blurring of the boundaries between the two… – (already seen in a small way with emerging ‘caring’ attitudes of humans towards ‘people-friendly’ robots) • This is one illustration of the move from ‘conventional’ techno-ethics and artificial ethics Instrumental – robot is just a device Intrinsic – if an old lady has a robot that she loves, her children cannot just throw the old robot to the garbage can.
Artificial Ethics (AE) • AE could be defined as – The activity of creating systems which perform in ways which imply (or confer) the possession of ethical status when humans perform in those ways. (? ) • The emphasis on performance could be questioned • What is the relation between AE and Artificial Consciousness (AC)? • What is ethical (moral) status?
Two key elements of moral status of a robot
1. Can robot harm community? 2. Can community harm the robot? ( Totality of moral agents )
X is a member of community ( one moral agent ) ( Totality of moral agents )
Two key elements of X’s moral status (in the eyes of Y) • (a) X’s being the recipient or target of moral concern by Y (moral consumption) [Y X] • (b) X’s being the source of moral concern towards Y (moral production) [X Y]
Ethical status in the absence of consciousness 1. Trying to refine our conception on the relation between AC and AE 2. What difference does consciousness make to artificial agency? 3. In order to shed light on this question we need to investigate – the putative ethical status of artificial agents (AAs) when (psychologically real) consciousness is acknowledged to be ABSENT. Retired general has a superintelligent robot that does not look like a human and is not psychologically humanoid. Can he dismantle the robot to pieces for fun? Can he shoot at him as he paid for it?
Our ethical interaction with nonconscious artificial agents… • ? ? Could non-conscious artificial agents have genuine moral status … • (a) As moral consumers? – (having moral claims on us) • (b) As moral producers? – (having moral responsibilities towards us (and themselves)) The dog or horse that kills a human is ordered by the law to be killed ? The robot that kills a human is killed?
A Strong View of AE • ‘Psychologically real’ consciousness is necessary for AAs to be considered BOTH (a)as genuine moral consumers AND (b) as genuine moral producers • – AND there are strong constraints on what counts as ‘psychologically real’ consciousness. • So, on the ‘strong’ view, non-conscious AAs will have no real ethical status The MIT “strong AI researchers” will be now in trouble, explain why?
• One way to weaken the strong view: – by accepting weaker criteria for what counts as ‘psychologically real’ consciousness – – e. g. by saying ‘Of course you need consciousness for ethical status, but soon robots, etc. will be conscious in a psychologically real sense. ’
A weaker view of AE • Psychologically real consciousness is NOT necessary for an Artificial Agent (AA) to be considered – (a) as a genuine moral producer • (i. e. as having genuine moral responsibilities) • But it may be necessary for an AA to be considered – (b) as a genuine moral consumer • (i. e. as having genuine moral claims on the moral community)
A version of the weaker view is to be found in: 1. Floridi, L. and Sanders, J. 2004. On the Morality of Artificial Agents, Minds and Machines , 14(3): 349 -379. Floridi & Sanders: Some (quite ‘weak’ * kinds of) artificial agents may be considered as having a genuine kind of moral ‘accountability’ ‘accountability • even if not moral ‘responsibility’ in a full-blooded sense – * ( i. e. this kind of moral status may attach to such agents quite independently of their status as conscious agents)
Examining the strong view • See Steve Torrance, “Ethics and Consciousness in Artificial Agents”, Artificial Intelligence and Society • Being a fully morally responsible agent requires 1. empathetic intelligence or rationality; 2. moral emotions or sensibilities • These seem to require presence of psychologically real consciousness • BUT….
Shallow artificial ethics: a paradox • Paradox: – Even if not conscious, we will expect artificial agents to behave ‘responsibly’ – To perform ‘outwardly’ to ethical standards of conduct • This creates an urgent and very challenging programme of research for now… developing appropriate ‘shallow’ ethical simulations… 1. How you can make a robot responsible for its actions if he has no real morality. 2. If he has real morality you cannot kill him.
Who is responsible: robot or the designer? • Locus of responsibility • Where would the locus of responsibility of such systems lie? – For example, when they ‘break down’, give wrong advice, etc…? • On current consensus: With designers, operators rather than with AA itself. • If only with human designers/users, then such ‘moral’ AAs don’t seem to have genuine moral status – even as moral producers? » BUT… 1. Is Alan responsible if his robot will insult the US President during a visit? 2. Is the robot responsible? 3. Is PSU responsible? 4. Perkowski?
Moral implications of increasing cognitive superiority of AAs • We’ll communicate with artificial agents (AAs) in richer and subtler ways • We may look to AAs for ‘moral’ advice and support • We may defer to their normative decisions – E. g when multiplicity of factors require superior cognitive powers to humans Automated ‘moral pilot’ systems? Busy parents professionals will rely on a robot to give moral advice to their children. Whom to blame for bad behavior of children? What if the child will love robot more than the Mommie? Roman children loved often their Greek slave teachers more than parents.
Non-conscious AAs as moral producers • None of these properties seem to require consciousness So the strong view seems to be in doubt? Perhaps non-conscious AAs can be genuine moral producers Killing a slave or “low-class” people in the past • The question of ‘When can we trust a moral judgment given by a machine? ’ See answer in: Blay Whitby, “Computing Machinery and Morality” submitted, AI and Society
• So… • So non-conscious artificial agents perhaps could be ‘genuine’ moral producers – At least in limited sorts of ways
• In contrast, in a paper ‘Ethics and Consciousness in Artificial Agents’ the author believes: • Having the capacity for genuine morally responsible judgment and action require a kind of empathic rationality • And it’s difficult to see how such empathic rationality could exist in a being which didn’t have psychologically real consciousness
• In any case, it will be a hard and complex job to ensure that the “robots designed for morality” will simulate moral production in an ethically acceptable way.
Non-conscious AAs as moral consumers
Non-conscious AAs as moral consumers • What about non-conscious AAs as moral consumers? consumers – (i. e. as candidates for our moral concern)? – Our moral responsibility for a robot? • Could it ever be rational for us to consider ourselves as having genuine moral obligations towards non-conscious AAs?
Consciousness and moral consumption • At first sight – being a ‘true’ moral consumer seems to require being able to consciously experience pain, distress, need, satisfaction, joy, sorrow, etc. – i. e. psychologically real consciousness • Otherwise why waste resources? Can we dispose robots at our will when convenient? ….
Example of our responsibility for a robot: The case of property ownership • AAs may come to have interests which we may be legally (and morally? ) obliged to respect • Andrew Martin – he is a robot in Bicentennial Man – Andre acquires (through courts) legal entitlement to own property in his own ‘person’
Bicentennial Man • Household android is acquired by Martin family – christened Andrew • His decorative products – exquisitely crafted from driftwood – become highly prized collectors' items
Bicentennial Man (cont)
Bicentennial Man (cont) • Andrew, arguably, has legal rights to his property; • It would be morally wrong for us not to respect them (e. g. to steal from him) • His rights to maintain his property – (and our obligation not infringe those rights) … does not depend on our attributing consciousness to him …
Bicentennial Man (cont) A case of robot moral (not just legal) rights? • Andrew, arguably, has moral, not just legal moral rights to his property; • Would it not be morally wrong for us not to respect his legal rights? – (morally wrong, e. g. , to steal from him? )
Bicentennial Man (cont) Does it matter if he is non-conscious? • Arguably, Andrew’s moral rights to maintain his property – (and our moral obligation to not infringe those rights) … do not depend on our attributing consciousness to him …
Bicentennial Man (cont) • On the legal status of artificial agents, see – David Calverley, “Imagining a Non-Biological Machine as a Legal Person”, • Submitted, Artificial Intelligence and Society • For further related discussion of Asimov’s Bicentennial Man, see – Susan Leigh Anderson, “Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics” and Machine Metaethics”
Super. Intelligent Robots?
Can developing Super-Intelligent Robots affect the whole human civilization and fate of the Universe ?
Hugo De Garis The question is not if we will design intelligent robots, the questions is if we should design gods who will supersede our intelligence and consciousness. Artilects, Artilect wars?
TECHNOLOGY FORECASTING Ø First order impacts: linear extrapolation – faster, better, cheaper Ø Second and third order impacts: non-linear, more difficult to forecast Ø Analogy: The automobile in 1909 Ø Faster, better, cheaper than horse and buggy (but initially does not completely surpass previous technology) Ø Then industrial changes: rise of automotive industry, oil industry, road & bridge construction, etc. Having no intelligence and consciousness, our life affected morally and intellectually by new technology development like cars or TV or computers.
Influence of cars on our lives! Ø Then cars affected social changes: Ø clothing, Ø rise of suburbs, Ø family structure (teenage drivers, dating), Ø increasing wealth Ø and personal mobility Ø Then cars affected geopolitical changes: Ø oil cartels, Ø foreign policy, Ø religious and tribal conflict, Ø wars, Ø environmental degradation Ø and global warming
Conclusions 1. We need to distinguish between shallow and deep AC and AE 2. We need to distinguish techno-ethics from artificial ethics (especially strong AE) 3. There seems to be a link between an artificial agent’s status as a conscious being and its status as an ethical being 4. A strong view of AC says that genuine ethical status in artificial agents (both as ethical consumers and ethical producers) requires psychologically real consciousness in such agents.
Conclusions, continued 5. Questions can be raised about the strong view - (automated ethical advisors; property ownership) 6. There are many important ways in which a kind of (shallow) ethics has to be developed for present day and future non-conscious agents. 7. But in an ultimate, ‘deep’ sense, perhaps AC and AE go together closely – (see paper ‘Ethics and Consciousness in Artificial Agents’ for defense of the strong view much more robustly, as the ‘organic’ view. )
Sources of slides Robert Finkelstein Steve Torrance, Middlesex University, UK ラファエル・カプーロ http: //www. capurro. de/home-jp. html Steinbeis Transfer Institut – Information Ethics (STI-IE) http: //sti-ie. de Cybernics University of Tsukuba, Japan http: //www. cybernics. tsukuba. ac. jp/index. html September 30, 2009
This is an expanded version of a talk given at a conference of the ETHICBOTS project in Naples, Oct 17 -18, 2006. See S. Torrance; ‘The Ethical Status of Artificial Agents – With and Without Consciousness’ (extended abstract), in G. Tamburrin and E. Datteri (eds) Ethics of Human Interaction with Robotic, Bionic and AI Systems: Concepts and Policies, Napoli: Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici, 2006. See also S. Torrance, ‘Ethics and Consciousness in Artificial Agents’, submitted to Artificial Intelligence and Society