In Death by Robot, Robin Henig talks about what goes into the decision making of the robots and the types of decisions that a robot will have to make, including the difficult ones. For one, he talks about the algorithm that goes into effect when a robot is in a sticky situation. For example, when a patient of the robot is asking for medicine, the robot has to check with the supervisor, but the supervisor is not reachable. This is a situation in which the robot is in a “hypothetical dilemma.” The robot is commanded to make its patient pain-free but only if it can get permission to give the patient medicine from the supervisor. Henig also talks about what the experts in the emerging field of robot morality are going so that robots are able to …show more content…
Henig also talks about more complex situations in which a robot has to make a life-or-death decision. Henig talks about a situation in which a driverless car can decide to avoid a car crash by hitting a pedestrian. He talks about the varying circumstances in which a robot who have to decide who to save. For example, the pedestrian might differ at times. What if the pedestrian is a child? If so, then is it better to crash into the car instead? What if the car has two or more people? Then, does the amount of lives that die in the crash matter? Should the number of fatalities be limited into a minimum? If the algorithm were to always be commanded to keep the number of fatalities to a minimum, would the driverless car go off the road and only kill one person: its passenger? Another example used by Henig where robots could have use is in the battlefield. He states that the military is working on a ground robot that can either shoot or hold its fire based off the uniform of the enemy. The robot can also determine if a shooting is not permitted based off of the situation. For example, it the target is in a public place with a lot of civilians, the robot will cease its fire. These robots are equipped with a set of moral rules which allows them to have a sense of …show more content…
Personally I agree with the statements made by Asaro because I believe that human lives are too valuable to let “someone” (more like something) else to control them. Also, I don’t think that one can input feelings in a robot which makes the robot lifeless. I think that there is too great of a chance for a malfunction to occur and if we do not be careful the effects of the technological “advancement” can be fatal. Personally I believe that things should stay as they are right now. Why have a robot to take care of the elderly when it cannot decide without the approval of another person? Why not hire a caretaker instead? Why should someone buy a driverless car when you can either drive yourself or have someone drive you? I believe that we should continue these practices because they involve our decision making and not that of a robot. I believe that the only way a robot can be is when it is out fighting on the battlefield. I believe that this is the only reason that a robot should be used because it can greatly lower the number of fatalities in war, thus saving lives and helping families. Maybe one day the world will only use robots for warfare so that men do not have to keep continuing to sacrifice for their families. This will also help the families of the members in the army because when there is no loss, there is no grief. In conclusion, I don’t think that using robots for everyday
In my opinion, we should embrace and welcome robots into our daily lives because they improve our society in various ways. Some of the ways our society has benefited from the creation of robots include transportation, home maintenance, home assistance, education, security, entertainment, disabled assisted living, and even elderly assisted living. In the article The Future of Robot Caregivers, the author, Louise Aronson, states that the idea of robot caregivers shouldn’t be as threatening as most people perceive. She also states that our society as whole, not just the elderly, will benefit greatly in many aspects. For example, Aronson begins by mentioning that caregiving is a difficult job and that “it is work that many people either can’t or
Robotics can be virtual and/or mechanical objects that we use in everyday activities. Even though robots have been around since 1960’s. In the healthcare field we have become more dependent upon them since the 1980 's. Robots have been used to assist people in varies everyday task in laboratories and operating rooms. Some examples their usage are intervention with giving medication, assisting kids with autism, transferring and lifting patients. Although robots have made some of the healthcare fields task easier there can be questions with such technology which can impact ethical policy and non-human touch.
In his 2011 The Chronicle Review article “Programmed for Love” Jeffrey R. Young interviews Professor Sherry Turkle about her experience with what she calls “sociable robots”. Turkle has spent 15 years studying robotics and its social emergence into society. After extensive research and experimenting with the robots, she believes that soon they will be programmed to perform specific tasks that a human would normally do. While this may seem like a positive step forward to some people, Turkle fears the worst. The article states that she finds this concept “demeaning, ‘transgressive,’ and damaging to our collective sense of humanity.” (Young, par. 5). She accredits this to her personal and professional experience with the robots. Turkle and her
Robots have been useful to humans since the past. They’re made to make human life easier. Since early times people have been dreaming of making robots and different people have made different kinds of robots. Robots has been useful in the past, they’re now useful in present-time, and they’re going to be useful in the future.
In “Alone Together: The Robotic Movement,” Sherry Turkle explains some of the negative effects that robots are having on our lives. She also explains how they can have a negative effect on our daily lives without us even noticing. I am someone who knows a great deal about technology, however I had no idea that close human-robot interaction was happening at such an inappropriate level. There are many different examples Turkle uses in the article, however, I will only talk about two. I agree with Turkle not only that there are ethical problems with human-robot interaction but also that a lot of other forms of technology might be doing more harm than good.
With Robots becoming a popular part of our everyday lives people are beginning to question if people are treating robots with the same respect that they treat people with. Researchers are also beginning to wonder if there need to be laws to protect robots from being tortured or even killed. Scientists have done research to test and see if people react the same to robots as they would to actual people or animals. In Is it Okay to Torture or Murder a Robot Richard Fisher contemplates the reason on why it is wrong to hurt or kill a robot by using a stern and unbiased tone.
Jerry West’s article “Robots on Earth” talks about robots that, unlike books or movies, aid people simplifying their lives and health. As robots don’t need specific conditions; they are perfect for performing jobs that might be harmful to humans. Like the R2 humanoid at the International Space Station, which completes dangerous and mundane tasks for astronauts and frees their time. They also boost our health; they are working with scientists to create an exoskeleton for quadriplegic people. Robots aren’t evil, they’re useful machines that have so much to offer and make our lives safer.lives
In this day and age society is evolving in many different and unique ways. One major way is through our technology, which is improving every day. The new advancements can help make communicating easier, education smoother, and our country a safer place to live. This summer The Dallas Texas police force used a new and equipped robot to kill a criminal who refused to surrender. This has caused a very controversial subject in our country. The people who think it is morally wrong. Then there are people who think it is a great way to help and keep our low enforcement safer. I agree that it will help. Using a robot, it is safer, more efficient, and more American.
(Human robots, 3 laws of robotics: choose between two evils, clones) Everyone in the world needs some set of morals, some guidelines set in stone that can never be crossed. Not having these morals leads to a twisted sense of humanity and life itself. Mandella had just experienced a tragic incident and much death and is still trying to comprehend it. “But we’ve had so much death...
In the article Why Self Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill, there are robotic cars being manufactured. These vehicles will get better gas mileage and prevent less accidents compared to human driven vehicles. One dilemma due to these robotic vehicles is if a time comes where you are riding in your robotic vehicle and it heads straight into a group of ten people the only way to save these people is to swerve and crash into a wall killing the driver and the occupants of the vehicle. Most people are comfortable with the idea that self driving cars should be programmed to minimize the death toll. These issues can not be ignored because how much time and money these car companies have endowed in this robotic advanced product. Which one would choose when it comes down to it?
Lately there have been more and more smart machines that have been taking over regular human tasks but as it grows the bigger picture is that robots will take over a lot of tasks now done by people. But, many people think that there are important ethical and moral issues that have to be dealt with this. Sooner or later there is going to be a robot that will interact in a humane manner but there are many questions to be asked like; how will they interact with us? Do we really want machines that are independent, self-directed, and has affect and emotion? I think we do, because they can provide many benefits. Obviously, as with all technologies, there are dangers as well. We need to ensure that people always
The article “Here’s a Terrible Idea: Robot Cars with Adjustable Ethics Settings,” presents a very interesting dilemma I had not considered before. In theory, it makes sense that an intelligent vehicle could have the capability to determine who and where to wreck should the decision be needed. Unfortunately, the ethical robot car idea is problematic, and comes with numerous moral issues.
Another issue brought forward from the movie is whether they should be given the same rights as humans. The movie shows us that the robots have three laws that they live by, the first one being they must protect human from any harm. This first law has a few issues in being that sometimes humans do not need to be protected, for example people who have committed a crime, need to be punished, not protected. The second law tells the robot they are to obey every order given unless it violates the first law. Even if the order is unethical the robot must still obey it. The third law states the robot must protect the robot its self unless it would violate the first two laws. If they were given the same rights as humans would set them free from their laws. Robots cannot function as human because they lack the ability to have compassion or emotion. Robots do not have the ability to make ethical decisions.
Autonomous weapons, machines and systems capable of reason and deduction without need of any human reference or guidance have caused many questions to be proposed. Some have asked whether the enhanced capabilities of such systems should change the way humans treat the actions of such machines. Do they pose a threat to humans similar to that of a kitchen knife that has to be misused by a person to cause harm? Or should they be treated like that of an enemy soldier, that despite it only doing it main function, nevertheless has to take responsibility for his actions? Some ask whether it is ethical for a machine to be able to decide on its own to take a human life, and with no one pulling the trigger, how do you judge the gun, or any tool with
But with these great advantages there are always some disadvantages to weigh in to the equation. After all, there is no such thing as a free lunch and robots are no exception to this rule. There are of course a few negative aspects to robot usage. Here are some of the questions that arise: are there such kinds of robots that should not be created? Will robots put capable workers out of jobs, if so is this a justifiable action? And of course the ignorant issue of, what if some day robots become like people, in terms of thinking and acting for them selves, how would we be able to distinguish robot from human?