Pavlov's Icon

New blog post via Content Insight!
http://www.content-insight.com/blog/2013/09/05/49-pavlovs-icon.html

My first professional blog post!

Look at the beginning of my post grad career - with all new infographics created by me!
http://www.content-insight.com/blog.html

Personification of Robots - Rosie, Bender, and the Terminator

Implications of the Personification of Robots

Whether through anthropomorphization, programming, or self-learning – the personification of robots will lead to legal issues of robot liability. This liability will be studied through popular fictional robotic characters.

 [1]

Description - Rosie from the Jetson’s is one of the most people friendly and caring visions of robots in the future. Her appearance is as a maid and somewhat matronly and she wears a version of a uniform to cover most of her metal exterior. Her role in the family is much like that of a nanny to both children and adult. Her sometimes role as medication dispenser implies a similar characteristic to medi-doctors or robo-dieticians.

Implications – Legally, using an outdated model robot may void all warranties, and release the production companies from liability, especially if this includes negecting vital software updates. The utilization of a robot in childcare could hold the parents at risk for negligence or neglect charges if the children do not receive adequate care. Additionally, dispensing of medication to family members with short or no proper diagnostic times creates a myriad of legal and ethical issues about medical malpractice. Pharmecuetical companies may buy in with certain kinds of robots and not others. Risk of bodily harm through overdose or prescription interaction may occur. Robots of this nature may need to obtain licenses for both childcare and medical practice. An out of date robot may not be able to obtain an up date license. Software companies would need more than usual levels of user testing and error checks before their product could be safely licensed for home use.

 [2]

Description – Bender is the “up to no good” cook at Planet Express on Futurama. Bender’s appearance is all metal, but with human proportionate arms, legs, torso, etc. He is a heavy drinker, yet that is actually the fuel that he runs on, and can therefore be somewhat mitigated. His love of stealing and desire to “kill all humans” imply the ability to have empathy through his likes and dislikes, but simply choice not to feel bad for others.

Implications – While Bender is obviously up to no good, is it truly his fault? As brought up in one TV episode, he lacks the free will to change due to his programming – so therefore he should lack the full responsibility for his actions. Would the manufacturer or software developer then be liable for all stealing and mayhem performed by this robot? Perhaps his human characteristics to like and dislike would be considered free will to supersede his initial programming, and hold him liable for criminal charges for his actions. Due to a weakness to magnets, Bender’s inhibitions and judgment are destroyed. If he committed a crime while in the presence of magnets, would this cancel his culpability for the unlawful act – much in the way a human can be found “Not guilty by reason of insanity.”

 [3]

Description – Perhaps the ultimate in human imitation, Terminators are fully autonomous human killing machines. Able to mimic human abilities including voices and actions, they are the extreme copycat. Flesh and human fluids prevent easy detection by appearance, therefore stealth by mimicry is also a key component of these robots. Later models possess shape changing abilities in addition to the human appearance, and all models are programmed by the self aware artificial intelligence Skynet.

Implications – Assuming the prohibitive costs of associated technology, it is not likely Terminator robots would be mass produced to wipeout humanity in the beginning. Most likely Terminators would have key targets to start with; strategic assasinations. If lucky enough to avoid one of these assasination attempts, what would the target’s liability be? Would people be able to prove identity theft by Terminator and avoid consequences for all crimes and mayhem committed? Questions arise as to what could be blamed on robot mimicry and what would be the responsibility of the impersonated parties to prove. DNA testing may be requireed to stay out of jail in even the most minor circumstances. And what about the creation of Terminators? There are many reasons to promote the regulation of self aware technologies to prevent such a disaster. Failsafe regulations may be required to limit the harm of all robots, much like in the laws proposed by Asimov.

Conclusion – Ultimately, for all the shortcuts that we dream robots can create for us, neew issues in liability and responsibility are also created. Laws may be the most prudent regulator to inhibit the deployment of this technology by designating consequences for errant actions.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jetsons#Characters

[2] http://gregorious.hubpages.com/hub/Bender-Futurama

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_(character_concept)

The Evolution of Robots

The eventual result of constantly emerging robot technologies will be self-evolving robots.

        Emerging technologies show the current evolution of robots in many different areas inspired by multiple different designs. Recent headlines have described robot limbs[1] which can move on their own and robotic bees[2] which may be capable of pollinating live flowers. Current practices in 3-D printing have shown that the new ‘printer robots’ capable of creating myriad of items, including organic items such as human body parts and even food.

        A bionic ear has been successfully constructed using a 3D printer, allowing for the integration of biological cells to be layered upon electronic counterparts and create a working implant similar to that of a high tech cochlear implant[3]. While still in the development stage, this integration of man and machine has allowed creators to sidestep of many ethical and legal hurdles in the medical field, by not requiring any major sacrifice from other human patients. The seamless integration of machine parts and human tissue promotes the further evolution of man and machine as a single entity.

        Additionally in the world of 3D printers, robots are even being used to create food. Through funding from NASA, research is currently being used to create food. The food in question is the concept of a 3D printer being filled with base organic matter derived from otherwise inedible (or at least unpalatable) products such as bugs and processed proteins[4]. The printer ‘cartridges’ would be shelf stable and take up far less space than traditional foods, all the while fulfilling the nutritional requirements of the customers.

        It seems that robotics is able to perform so many functions that would normally be considered functions of nature, including creating flesh, food, and pollinating plants. The next step would be to have robots create robots, which is exactly what Nick Cheney at Cornell University has hypothesized[5]. Cheney created computer demonstrations showing the capability of robots to respond to stressors and environmental pressure, and using the same basic algorithms described in natural selection, these robots evolved to create those best suited. While the final products did not necessarily resemble the typical human concept for many of the stages of advancement, the advancement went on at a rate as efficient as or faster than biological evolution.

        The logical conclusion of creating machines to act as biological agents such as bees, limbs, ears, and food is that machines themselves will begin to mimic biological traits. The most efficient creators of technology have been proven to be other technology such as 3D printers, thereby indicating the next level of efficiency will be in and of itself machine led innovation, such as robot evolution.

---

[1][1] Robotic Limbs: Moved by the Mind, 60 Minutes, Correspondent Scott Pelley, Originally aired Dec 13^th 2012.

[2] “RoboBees” take first flight, CBS News, Shoshana Davis, May 2^nd 2013.

[3] 3D Printer Churns out Bionic Ear, Chemistry World, John Cartwright, May 13, 2013.

[4] How 3D Printers could Reinvent NASA Space Food, Space.com, Megan Gannon, May 28, 2013.

[5] 3D Printers Demonstrate Rapid robot Evolution, Live Science, Marshall Honorof, May 23, 2013.

Robots as Remote Semi-autonomous Doctors

Robotic doctors are the future means to serve remote medical needs.

Many areas are underserved by medical care and facilities. Robotic doctors are widely considered an inferior option and not a true replacement for human physicians, yet can these robotic options be used when there aren’t any humans available? Ethical and legal implications are discussed.

        Current medical robots are not yet on the level of self-operating artificial intelligence that may be seen in science fiction, but medical robots are becoming increasingly used in the medical theatres of today. The da Vinci robot is commonly being used in surgery. Most recently the FDA has approved a self-navigating robot that allows for remote doctors to have a simple interface with patients. Named the “Remote Presence Virtual + Independent Telemedicine” or RP+VITA, is considered the first autonomous navigation remote presence robot to obtain the FDA go ahead.[1] With remote doctoring approval, new uses may arise for these medical robots that have not been encountered before.

Doctors without Borders

        Doctors without borders are internationally known for:

provides independent, impartial assistance in more than 60 countries to people whose survival is threatened by violence, neglect, or catastrophe, primarily due to armed conflict, epidemics, malnutrition, exclusion from health care, or natural disasters[2].

        The assistance provided by this organization is frequently hindered by the danger of the situation being served, whether through armed conflict or catastrophe. Allowing a remote doctor within even primitive clinics would mitigate the legal and ethical risk of allowing humans into such dangerous situations. While not able to provide immediate first aid, a remote diagnostician could still provide input on medication and questions on symptoms and treatment. Additionally, instead of putting the burden of this work on one doctor, the burden could be shared among many, taking turns and allowing 24 hour staffing of the doctor position.

Mars and Colonization

        While years away, thousands of people have already signed up to be among the first to colonize Mars[3]. Logically, any expedition would begin with medical staff among the crew, but what if something happened to these people. How would people seek treatment? A favorite science fiction author of mine, H.M. Hoover envisioned remote doctors for every planetary expedition. Even on remote planets with larger populations, people often branched out into lesser inhabited areas for exploration, and often equipped remote doctors in their air cars. Robot doctors would encourage the exploration of Mars. Additionally, the fact of switching between doctors on the machines would allow for multiple specialties to be represented in one machine, such as an orthopedist, psychologist, and pediatrician at one time.

Rural America

        Much of the rural United States lacks immediate medical facilities. Growing up in South Dakota it becomes very apparent that the middle of the state has a few people, but mostly a lot of soybeans and cattle. Additionally, this farmland of America experiences harsh weather during much of the year. Traveling for simple cold or non-emergent medical needs could be more dangerous than leaving the symptoms untreated. A remote physician would allow the diagnosis of conditions without travelling up to 100 miles for the nearest doctor, by allowing remote triage and a prioritization of risk.

        In conclusion, semi-autonomous robot doctors can be used as an asset, not as a replacement for physicians. The future will demonstrate the utility of remote diagnosis for otherwise inaccessible patients. Expanding technology will help to mitigate risks to both doctors and patients, and provide more timely care.

       

---

[1] “The Robot Doctor will See You Now,” Discovery News, by Nic Halverson, January 25^th 2013.

[2] Doctors Without Borders, Medicines Sans Frontieres, www.doctorswithoutborders.org/aboutus

[3] “Want to Live on Mars? Private Martian Colony Project Seeks Astronauts” Space.com, by Clara Moskowitz, April 22, 2013

Da Vinci robots and liability

Robotics and Liability

Thesis – The Da Vinci surgical robot manufacturer is allegedly responsible for the harm caused to a patient by a doctor’s lack of training. By finding against Da Vinci we create a misplaced level of liability and unattainable responsibility by product manufacturers.

            Current robots are mostly of a variety that is directly controlled by a human, as opposed to the more futuristic versions of artificial intelligence shown in science fiction. This direction by humans implies a level of responsibility for the controller, not just the manufacturer. The manufacturer therefore would be responsible for the robot’s operations as if it were a tool in these circumstances.

            An example of this responsibility can be demonstrated by thinking of an automobile. The automobile is not driving itself [yet]; therefore the automobile manufacturer is not responsible for decisions made by the driver. The manufacturer is responsible for the operation of the vehicle and construction of its parts. Brakes are expected to stop a car with regular maintenance. Steering wheels are expected to turn the vehicle. If these items are in working order, and a car turns suddenly into opposing traffic, the fault of the accident would normally be found with the driver.

            This is the argument being made in Kitsap County by the makers of the Da Vinci surgical robot, “The defendant in the suit, da Vinci manufacturer Intuitive Surgical, says the robot worked as designed and the company isn’t responsible for surgical mistakes.”[1] The case before the courts is not one of debate about the damage done to the patient. It seems very clear that the injuries of Fred Taylor were clearer not normal complications of a prostate surgery, causing undue harm and ultimately speeding his death due to complications. Da Vinci is arguing that they are not liable for the misuse of their tool, the surgical robot, and that sole liability should be at the hands of the inexperienced doctor who used it.

            Complications in this case come with the assertions of the patients that Da Vinci is responsible for proper training and enforcement of a certain skill level with their robotics, which the expectation of the manufacturer extends to training and practices of the doctors using these machines. While raising certain questions, my belief is that this liability is not yet on Da Vinci. Due to the fact that the product is under direct operation of a human, the choices in the actions of the machine are at the fault of the human. This belief is based on the fact that an auto manufacturer is not liable for the actions of an unlicensed driver; a gun manufacturer is not responsible for a home shooting. There are additional agencies in place to enforce the licensing and use of these machines, and the use of a surgical robot would come under the same liability as that of other medical tools, not the manufacturer.

            In support of this argument also, Da Vinci has given guidelines for suggested processes to learn and best use their equipment; which in this case were not followed, violating the intended use of the machine. As a third supporting fact for the defense of Da Vinci, it does not seem that their instrument directly malfunctioned, which would be their responsibility. The arms, joints, and cameras all worked.

The lawsuit alleges that Da Vinci dumbed down training in order to sell more machines. I believe this does not imply negligence on the part of Da Vinci, although it may point to highly questionable morals and business practices. This is not to say there is not negligence in the lack of training on these robotic machines. Much as the responsibility for a driver’s license falls on the department of motor vehicles, the responsibility for training lies with medical authorities. By holding Da Vinci liable for the doctor’s damage in this case, an unobtainable precedent would be set requiring companies to create a self-regulatory division in charge of enforcement of skills in addition to manufacturing products.

---

[1] “Failed robotic surgery focus of Kitsap Trial”, The Seattle Times, Carol M Ostrom, May 3^rd, 2013.

Household Robots Data Retention and Privacy Risks

Robots create all new methods of direct surveillance. When thinking of direct surveillance the common thoughts are of James Bond style spy devices. Hi-tech spy equipment designed to infiltrate and transmit would fit the idea of a surveillance robot, but in reality our privacy is likely to be invaded in much more mundane ways. Regular household items such as toys and household helper robots are constantly learning data about our daily lives. The level of retention and distribution of this data may constitute a threat to our personal privacy, and possibly unlawful search and seizure.

Issues surrounding robots and privacy are similar to the issues surrounding the internet. When browsing the internet we transmit data. Our IP address is sent to users we don’t know. Our browsing history is recorded. Retailers such as Amazon and EBay record our purchasing history. Direct conversations are recorded by email and instant message. Social media shares items from political opinions to photos and even our location in real time. The legal questions arise when addressing how this data is used, whether it is an item freely shared, or whether this data should be considered private.

An example of how seemingly innocuous data can be revealing can be illustrated by looking at Facebook. While it is commonly realized that liking certain pages can affect the ads seen on your personal Facebook page, a recent study has shown that this data can be used to create an entire personality profiles[1]. This data is voluntarily shared, and would not constitute an illegal search or invasion of privacy, but it is illustrative to show how seemingly little data can show a lot of information.

An example of a seemingly innocuous robot in the home can be found by looking at chore robots such as the Neato XV-11, a new generation of floor cleaning robots. The Neato is highly reviewed for its ability to scan the entire room before cleaning, which prevents it from bumping into walls and scratching furniture.[2] The question becomes what happens to this data after scanning. What could a thief do with the exact layout of every room in your home? Where is the data stored and does it transmit? Household robots record your daily habits, which can easily reveal more than you may intend. If these robots are willingly discarded by the owner, is it legal for another party to obtain this information? What about manufacturers or repairmen? Where is the line to the right to privacy drawn?

Finally there are robots that act like our stereotypical idea of robots. Household robots that have the ability to interact with us have become popularized in fiction such as Rosie on the Jetsons. Built for both children and adults, robots such as the Rovio have high data collection capabilities[3]. Data is recorded in audio and video, and the robot wirelessly communicates. These robots have the ability to provide direct surveillance about our daily lives and conversations. Will search warrants in the future have the right to search household robots? The increased use of robotics in the home will lead to increased issues concerning privacy and the law. As with the internet it may take time to establish a precedent for this data use, as situations will be constantly evolving.

---

[1] What do your Facebook likes say about you? John Skorick, My AKA March 20, 2013 http://myaka.com/news/privacy-news/what-do-your-facebook-likes-say-about-you-407357

[2] 5 Household Robots for Easier Living http://mashable.com/2012/09/27/household-robots/

[3] A Spotlight on Security and Privacy Risks with Future Household Robots: Attacks and Lessons

Tamara Denning, Cynthia Matuszek, Karl Koscher, Joshua R. Smith, and Tadayoshi Kohno

Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington

Legal Ramifications of Drone Prevention

“Upcoming legal issues in privacy protection as applied to drones and other robotic surveillance.”

            Changing laws and technology have joined together to make the proliferation of commercial and legal drones likely to increase in the near future. This increase draws new issues regarding privacy, trespass, and property boundaries. While legal issues of drones and property rights are debated in courts, many people will be likely to find DIY methods to preserve privacy from surveillance. Different methods of protection may raise new legal issues. Multiple anti-drone methods are discussed.

Simple Canopies and Awnings

Description

The most simple and efficient method to prevent a drone from seeing into personal property would be to erect some form of cover. Items such as canopies and awnings would prevent simple video surveillance. Evening curtains and blinds in house windows would act as the most efficient barrier to unwanted viewers. This method is unlikely to prevent infrared or heat seeking technology, but still allows a strong measure of privacy.

Legal Issues

There would seem to be very few issues on erecting a shelter on private property, especially as these shelters would likely be seen as temporary structures or simple decoration. Issues could arise if a structure is found to be obtrusive or invasive to a neighbor. Additional safety issues may be found when determining structure type. Lesser issues such as homeowners association and neighborhood guidelines may also come into play.

Jamming or signal interference

Description

A method of jamming signals either to or from a drone may be accomplished using many different forms of technology, including computers and simple apps in some cases. The point of a jamming signal is to disrupt the operation of the drone. Simple jamming may block the ability to take pictures or record sound. More advanced jamming could disable device operations such as navigation, and possibly lead to the device crashing.

Legal Issues

The blocking of a visual or sound signal to a private sector drone operator is the issue least likely to cause legal ramifications. Consequences would more likely be from neighbors who get signal overflow disrupting their devices or law enforcement officials seeking to monitor someone. Disruption of devices and navigation may have many more legal consequences. The destruction of a drone may be considered the destruction of property. Additionally, if a drone was taken down from the air, what might it hit? Is there a possibility of personal or property injury? Additional damages may incur additional legal penalties. The range of these jamming devices may also create consequences, such as how far the signal is allowed to project in a three dimensional space. Vertical projection of a signal may have an effect on FAA regulations. Wildlife may be affected by disruptive signals, such as birds migrating and navigation patterns.

Weapons

Description

A simple and efficient way to remove drones from an unwanted area would be to physically shoot them down from the sky. Methods of shooting may differ including shotguns, rifles, lasers, or even advanced security systems. The direct result of combatting drones with weapons would be the destruction of the drone.

Legal Issues

The legal issues are myriad when combatting drones with weapons. States differ on the right to defend one’s property from threats. Guns laws are well established according to people, but what about machines? As with jamming, issues of damage to people and property would be paramount. Public opinion would likely help to shape and form laws involving the discharge of private weapons in residential and commercial districts.

Building Codes and Architecture

Description

Houses and buildings are often built to very recognizable guidelines. City office buildings are commonly made with large portions of glass, believing that few can look in these windows from higher up and allowing employees to enjoy the views. Houses are often one story or two, frequently lacking a basement. Approved codes for building and construction are recognized by most county officials, while new plans often come under scrutiny.

Legal Issues

With the proliferation of drones, building codes may need to change. Open air fire escapes may be replaced by enclosed stairwells. Windows and ventilation may be replaced with closed air systems, cutting off access from outside. Would this change in ventilation spur changes in air circulating standards for building safety? Homes may also choose to create bigger and larger basements. Digging further into the ground can cause issues with stability, sinkholes, and the water table. Environmental issues such as these may have legal ramifications with the EPA and county officials involving public safety.

What is a robot? Discussion of legality, technology, and cultural superiority

Thesis

           What is exactly is a robot? Robots have been defined by the law, language, and popular culture. As we continue to evolve through technology and society, so does our definition of a robot. Many characteristics we acknowledge are based on our conceptions of humanity and servitude demonstrating thoughts both to the future and the past.

               

Evaluation

“A robot is a reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools or specialized devices through variable programmed motions for the performance of a variety of tasks.”

--The Robotic Industries Association (RIA) (RIA 2013)

                Legally a robot is defined as a reprogrammable manipulator of physical material. This definition would essentially include and machine that has the option to be programmed. Could a very fancy screwdriver be a robot? Or is this only applicable to a sophisticated lathe? This definition seems broader than the common visual of a robot as a metallic man. Perhaps this definition is non-inclusive and should be evaluated further.

“ a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized”

--Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Anonymous 2013)

                Robot defined by the language experts refers and compares to humans to complete this definition. The primary definition defines that a robot, “look like a human,” yet be devoid of emotion. This definition implies that to be a robot, a machine must possess human characteristics, but not all human characteristics. In this definition, neither the programmable lathe nor the screwdriver would be accepted as a robot. Perhaps this makes other machines a different class of machine. Would the specification of human features and lack of emotions create subclasses of machine-kind? Would robots then discriminate against other robots based on Android, Industrial, or Artificial Intelligence base programming?

                Human kind has long pondered the case of the robot. It may seem that we are caught between a legal definition such as the one by RIA, and a cultural definition as defined by Merriam Webster. Legal definitions seem to be defined by technical capabilities and current technology. Cultural definitions seem to be ever evolving however. The term ‘robot’ first came about in 1920 from a Czech playwright and is derived from terms referring to servitude and slavery (Intagliata 2011). The term has been captured by pop culture and evolved in many ways, while still referring back to the origins of performing tasks for humans.

“Let us remember that the automatic machine is the precise economic equivalent of slave labor. Any labor which competes with slave labor must accept the economic consequences of slave labor.” 
― Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics (Chandler 2013)

                Are robots a fancy term for slave labor? Our working definitions so far include a programmable machine that does not feel emotion, yet resembles a human. When did this demand for lack of emotion get added to the definition of robot? Emotions are not specified in the original definition in 1920. As part of the human condition, have we tried to justify the invention of a slave race devoid of emotion to alleviate our guilt at the servitude of another? How much have we defined our understanding of robots based on the ability of robots to do jobs for us without feeling?

“Robots do not celebrate anything. Celebration is an expression of joy, which cannot be mechanized.” 
― Ravindra Shukla, A Maverick Heart Between Love and Life (Chandler 2013)

                By emphasizing an inability to feel joy, are we emphasizing the ability of a robot to feel pain? It is a common human temptation to anthropomorphize the objects around us. I doubt I am alone in believing my car has been throwing a temper tantrum. I feel very convinced my phone as it refuses to swear and regularly suggests the word ‘sinner’ as a noun replacement. We often create personalities for machines, yet are quick to note the distinctions between us and anything artificial. Is this distinction based upon fact or our desire to justify our feelings?

“Unfortunately robots capable of manufacturing robots do not exist. That would be the philosopher's stone, the squaring of the circle.” 

― Ernst Jünger, The Glass Bees (Chandler 2013)

                While initially true, the belief that robots cannot manufacture other robots may be a concept that will fade with time. The ever popular movies based on the Terminator series pose a world where machines can reproduce and become self-aware. If we define our definitions of robots based on their similarities and differences from ourselves, from the services these robots provide – then what happens when these robots evolve?

                While movies and science fiction may take examples to extremes, it seems that robots have already evolved from the dreams of a 1920’s playwright to working machines with both standard and legal definitions. Our definitions must keep evolving as does our technology. Our society too, must acknowledge the needs and fears behind this technological evolution. As robot becomes reality, so must we too look to the future and our lives as they evolve alongside machines?

         

References

Anonymous. (2013). “Robot,” Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Retrieved April 9, 2013

Chandler, O. (2013). “Quotes About Robots,” Good Reads, Inc. Retrieved April 9, 2013 from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/robots

Intagliata, C. (April 2011). “Science Diction: The Origin of the Word ‘Robot’”, Science Friday. Retrieved April 9, 2013 from http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/04/22/2011/science-diction-the-origin-of-the-word-robot.html

Robotics Industries Association. (2013). “Robotics Law and Legal Definition,” US Legal, Inc. Retrieved April, 9 2013 from http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/robotics/