Via The Economist
-----
IN THE classic science-fiction film “2001”, the ship’s computer, HAL,
faces a dilemma. His instructions require him both to fulfil the ship’s
mission (investigating an artefact near Jupiter) and to keep the
mission’s true purpose secret from the ship’s crew. To resolve the
contradiction, he tries to kill the crew.
As robots become more autonomous, the notion of computer-controlled
machines facing ethical decisions is moving out of the realm of science
fiction and into the real world. Society needs to find ways to ensure
that they are better equipped to make moral judgments than HAL was.
A bestiary of robots
Military technology, unsurprisingly, is at the forefront of the march towards self-determining machines (see Technology Quarterly).
Its evolution is producing an extraordinary variety of species. The
Sand Flea can leap through a window or onto a roof, filming all the
while. It then rolls along on wheels until it needs to jump again. RiSE,
a six-legged robo-cockroach, can climb walls. LS3, a dog-like robot,
trots behind a human over rough terrain, carrying up to 180kg of
supplies. SUGV, a briefcase-sized robot, can identify a man in a crowd
and follow him. There is a flying surveillance drone the weight of a
wedding ring, and one that carries 2.7 tonnes of bombs.
Robots are spreading in the civilian world, too, from the flight deck to the operating theatre (see article).
Passenger aircraft have long been able to land themselves. Driverless
trains are commonplace. Volvo’s new V40 hatchback essentially drives
itself in heavy traffic. It can brake when it senses an imminent
collision, as can Ford’s B-Max minivan. Fully self-driving vehicles are
being tested around the world. Google’s driverless cars have clocked up
more than 250,000 miles in America, and Nevada has become the first
state to regulate such trials on public roads. In Barcelona a few days
ago, Volvo demonstrated a platoon of autonomous cars on a motorway.
As they become smarter and more widespread, autonomous machines are
bound to end up making life-or-death decisions in unpredictable
situations, thus assuming—or at least appearing to assume—moral agency.
Weapons systems currently have human operators “in the loop”, but as
they grow more sophisticated, it will be possible to shift to “on the
loop” operation, with machines carrying out orders autonomously.
As that happens, they will be presented with ethical dilemmas. Should
a drone fire on a house where a target is known to be hiding, which may
also be sheltering civilians? Should a driverless car swerve to avoid
pedestrians if that means hitting other vehicles or endangering its
occupants? Should a robot involved in disaster recovery tell people the
truth about what is happening if that risks causing a panic? Such
questions have led to the emergence of the field of “machine ethics”,
which aims to give machines the ability to make such choices
appropriately—in other words, to tell right from wrong.
One way of dealing with these difficult questions is to avoid them
altogether, by banning autonomous battlefield robots and requiring cars
to have the full attention of a human driver at all times. Campaign
groups such as the International Committee for Robot Arms Control have
been formed in opposition to the growing use of drones. But autonomous
robots could do much more good than harm. Robot soldiers would not
commit rape, burn down a village in anger or become erratic
decision-makers amid the stress of combat. Driverless cars are very
likely to be safer than ordinary vehicles, as autopilots have made
planes safer. Sebastian Thrun, a pioneer in the field, reckons
driverless cars could save 1m lives a year.
Instead, society needs to develop ways of dealing with the ethics of
robotics—and get going fast. In America states have been scrambling to
pass laws covering driverless cars, which have been operating in a legal
grey area as the technology runs ahead of legislation. It is clear that
rules of the road are required in this difficult area, and not just for
robots with wheels.
The best-known set of guidelines for robo-ethics are the “three laws
of robotics” coined by Isaac Asimov, a science-fiction writer, in 1942.
The laws require robots to protect humans, obey orders and preserve
themselves, in that order. Unfortunately, the laws are of little use in
the real world. Battlefield robots would be required to violate the
first law. And Asimov’s robot stories are fun precisely because they
highlight the unexpected complications that arise when robots try to
follow his apparently sensible rules. Regulating the development and use
of autonomous robots will require a rather more elaborate framework.
Progress is needed in three areas in particular.
Three laws for the laws of robotics
First, laws are needed to determine whether the designer, the
programmer, the manufacturer or the operator is at fault if an
autonomous drone strike goes wrong or a driverless car has an accident.
In order to allocate responsibility, autonomous systems must keep
detailed logs so that they can explain the reasoning behind their
decisions when necessary. This has implications for system design: it
may, for instance, rule out the use of artificial neural networks,
decision-making systems that learn from example rather than obeying
predefined rules.
Second, where ethical systems are embedded into robots, the judgments
they make need to be ones that seem right to most people. The
techniques of experimental philosophy, which studies how people respond
to ethical dilemmas, should be able to help. Last, and most important,
more collaboration is required between engineers, ethicists, lawyers and
policymakers, all of whom would draw up very different types of rules
if they were left to their own devices. Both ethicists and engineers
stand to benefit from working together: ethicists may gain a greater
understanding of their field by trying to teach ethics to machines, and
engineers need to reassure society that they are not taking any ethical
short-cuts.
Technology has driven mankind’s progress, but each new advance has
posed troubling new questions. Autonomous machines are no different. The
sooner the questions of moral agency they raise are answered, the
easier it will be for mankind to enjoy the benefits that they will
undoubtedly bring.