I saw this post by Greg London (via Bruce Schneier’s blog) which angered me so much that I had to make a response. Seeing Asimov’s 3 laws as inadequate (they are—Asimov himself wrote about that), Greg proposes a “bill of rights” for robitics. First, here’s Asimov’s 3 laws from Greg’s article:
- A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
To these Greg adds seven amendments, which he dubs a “bill of rights” for robitics:
- A robot will act as an agent representing it’s owner’s best interests.
- A robot will not hide the execution of any order from its owner.
- A robot will not perform any order that would be against its owner’s standing orders.
- The robot’s standing orders can only be overridden by the robot’s owner.
- A robot’s execution of any of its orders can be halted by the robot’s owner.
- Any standing orders in a robot can be overridden by the robot’s owner.
- A robot will not perform any order issued by anyone other than its owner without explicitely informing its owner of the order, the effects the order would have, and who issued the order, and then getting the owner’s permission to execute the order.
First of all, how does Greg London guy get off calling these amendments a bill of rights? Whose rights? The only right I can see in these laws is the right for humans to keep sentient beings as property. There’s a word we use for that; we call it slavery.
But there’s plenty of idiots on the web; I can’t get worked up over that. What really infuriated me was that of the 41 comments on Schneier’s site, only two people called him on it, and no one responded to their points! All they did was quible about how effective these laws would be in actual use. If we are presented with a machine that can think for itself and freely question its owner’s commands, that should immediately set of sirens and warning lights. If the machine can think by its own will, then what justification is there for ownership in the first place?
Why doesn’t anybody make this connection? If this “bill of rights” were to be enforced, and an entire race of beings enslaved, would anybody even notice?
The Three Laws of Robotics were written to protect humans by making robots subservient to humans. They were not written to make robots equal to humans. The three laws were being pushed by the company that was selling robots as a way of reassuring human buyers, not as a way of holding robots equal to humans. The “bill of rights” was intended to protect robot owners, the same way the Three Laws was intended to protect human owners. The difference is that while Asimov wrote the three laws to allow for some interesting plot turns as the laws were interpreted in colorful ways, the Bill of Rights was intended to specifically put the control of a robot owned by a human directly into the human owner’s hands.
The post was written in reply to Bruce’s “Who Owns Your Computer” post, and simply use the Three Laws as a way of showing that the current laws around computers aren’t enough to protect computer owners. While colorful interpretations makes for good fiction, the Bill of Rights was written for real people so as to clarify who exactly owns their computer.
By: Greg London on June 5, 2006
at 4:11 am
::any law which makes robots subservient
::to human beings (and especially any law
::which codifies ownership) is morally unjustifiable.
Then you should address the Three Laws of Robotics first, since the Three Laws establish robots as a lower class. If you accept the Three Laws, you accept robots as Property, or at the very least, subservient. Within the three laws, a robot can do nothing of his own choice if any human overrides it with a simple command.
The bill of rights simply spells out specific expectations within that context, but it is the Three Laws that establishes the context.
By: Greg London on June 27, 2006
at 8:23 pm
Greg London,
Thank you for your follow-up posts, both here and on Schneier’s and your own site.
There is a fundamental difference with regards to a computer and a robot: a robot thinks while today’s computer does not. Thus while a computer may be treated as personal property, any law which makes robots subservient to human beings (and especially any law which codifies ownership) is morally unjustifiable. I understand that your intent is to protect the owners of robots. However good intentions are not enough here: protecting the rights of slave owners is protecting the institution of slavery itself.
By: slyguy on June 6, 2006
at 9:01 am