I found this on the “AIAA Daily Launch”:
"Scientists Praise NASA For Way It Handles Its Robots. Space.com (8/19, Hsu) reports, “Artificial intelligence researchers often idealize Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics as the signpost for robot-human interaction. But some robotics experts say that the concept could use a practical makeover to recognize the current limitations of robots.” David Woods of Ohio State University and Robin Murphy of Texas A&M University proposed a revised version of Asimov’s Three Laws. They also “suggested that Earth-bound robot handlers could take a hint from NASA when it comes to robot-human interaction,” with Murphy praising the agency for its “methodical approach that carefully tests robotic probes and rovers, recognizes the limits of robots, and tries to ensure that human operators can quickly jump into the driver’s seat when necessary.”
For me, it - once again - emphasizes that those of us who lurk on this and the controls forum have our own responsibilites regarding creating robots that can play the game well, and do it with a certain sense of safety in mind.
I first heard it on the radio during last build season, wanted to post about it then, and just got too swamped. Shame on me. It’s certainly a topic this community needs to visit, and revisit, often.
Science, of any kind, for “science-sake” alone can be very hazardous indeed. After reading this piece (and after hearing the NPR interview) I was reminded of an Einstein quote when he was discussing the use of the atomic bomb, “If only I’d have known. I would have become a watchmaker.”
hmmmmm…What was that about history? If you don’t learn from it, it’s bound to repeat itself?
Updating Asimov? Blasphemy! Sarcasm aside though, this is a good idea. The robots of Sci-fi are almost nothing like what robots are currently like, and if you need further proof, all you need to do is visit a first competition. The relationship between team members and robots is almost symbiotic; the robot is but a giant piece of metal and wire without people controlling it. Also, I know from my experience with driving a robot that they tend to break Asimov’s 2nd rule, if only unintentionally.
Also, I know from my experience with driving a robot that they tend to break Asimov’s 2nd rule, if only unintentionally.
Really? Ours tend to get the first and second laws switched around–our 2009 robot will gladly chase after a loose trailer when told to, while almost impaling people with the hitch assembly in the process.:eek:
Even with the updated 3rd law, I still see a liar’s paradox scenario. Evolutionary mutations of code will inevitably lead to deception for self-preservation. Thus the command “Drive off a cliff” will either be replied with a simple “no”, or it will simply stop responding as if it already did.
But then if it doesn’t drive off the cliff and doesn’t respond one has to wonder what it will do next, as it’s just lost its purpose in life… confounding indeed…