Should robots be allowed to kill us?

[nousd]

Illah Nourbakhsh, Prof of Robotics, Columbia University in Robot Futures
discusses how we can stop robots,
with their undistracted capacity to process huge amounts of data,
from invading our privacy &, ultimately, manipulate us
probably at the behest of multi-corps.

but a more interesting pursuit of his
is forming a lobby group to ensure that robots
cannot be allowed to make autonomous decisions to kill people
which is what, effectively, is happening now.

This seems to be just as important as stopping the dolphin slaughter at Taiji.

[abelard]

more importantly, shouldn't there be electric sheep we can fuck by now?

[Forum]

[kaili]

thats pretty 90s br0

[seckle]

philip k dick was a g.

[nousd]

yeah OK a few of the brighter ones got the reference
while a few sheepshaggas were distracted
so to put the question less obscurely, I've changed the title.

I mean
if robots are to build our cars,
vacuum the loungeroom
put out the garbage
detect & treat cancer
& wipe our old arses,
should we also allow them to kill us?

Maybe predators are currently acting on human instructions
but inevitably they will be designed to obliterate their own targets, based on analysis of inputs.

Is it realistic to draw a fine line & require robot killing to have a human final say?

[DiegoSapiens]

we don´t need robot to kill us, nature will do the job in a few years

[test_recordings]

According to Opendemocracy.net , military personal are most against the idea

[Soiree]

GUNs are robotic in nature, they are killing machines, give it up for the second amendment/

[titchbit]

LOL soiree that was very coherent. Good point.

[nousd]

sorry to rain on sorree's party
but guns currently require their triggers to be pulled
not having AI

imagine a gun that sensed a human & determined it was an enemy that needed killing
that OK with you?

[lloydnoise]

AI and robots are just an extension of human will, they do nothing they weren't designed to do by a human at some point. A complicated algorithm for identifying and killing a specific person was still built by a person, and that person has the ultimate responsibility for the capacity/limitations of their system.
Don't relinquish human accountability because technology makes the human element almost invisible.

I think, somehow, I'm agreeing with Soiree...

[DiegoSapiens]

no i don´t agree with soiree a gun is a machine not a robot, a robot has to be programed, a killing robot could be an automatic turret
bang bang bang

[Jizz]

as long as it doesnt say bad German jokes

[jaydot]

as long as it doesnt say bad German jokes

[Genevieve]

should we also allow them to kill us?

Who is we?

Soiree is right, kind of. The same rules that apply to murder/self-defense should apply to AI. Except AI and robots would be owned by people so the end responsibility would be there. Robots can glitch, but guns can malfunction too.

[danny_scrilla]

as long as it doesnt say bad German jokes

:funnybot: wo wohnt die katze? Im Miezhaus! :funnybot:

[deadly_habit]

Only if it's sex robot

[deadly_habit]

Also found out this is a hoax, but how cool would this be if true
"Quake 3 bots stop fighting after 4 year match"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... ear-match/

[nousd]

should we also allow them to kill us?

Who is we?

Soiree is right, kind of. The same rules that apply to murder/self-defense should apply to AI. Except AI and robots would be owned by people so the end responsibility would be there. Robots can glitch, but guns can malfunction too.

We meaning humanity.

Unlike guns, robots will be able to activate themselves, according to integrated sensors, to apply deadly force.
This is not a question about who is ultimately culpable
but whether robots should be programmed to respond to if statements by killing people.