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Implications – Legally, using an outdated model robot may void all warranties, and release the production companies from liability, especially if this includes negecting vital software updates.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 An out of date robot may not be able to obtain an up date license.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.