New blog post via Content Insight!
http://www.content-insight.com/blog/2013/09/05/49-pavlovs-icon.html
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Friday, June 14, 2013
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
http://www.content-insight.com/blog.html
Friday, May 31, 2013
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.
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outdated model robot may void all warranties, and release the production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 An out of date robot may not be able to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.
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.”
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.
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 13th 2012.
[2]
“RoboBees” take first flight, CBS News, Shoshana Davis, May 2nd
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.
Thursday, May 16, 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.
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 3rd, 2013.
Tuesday, April 30, 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
[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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)