Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics

Ask Slashdot: When Robots Are Ultra-Lifelike Will It Be Murder To Switch One Off? (newscientist.com) 226

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
An anonymous reader writes: "HELLO, I'm Scout. Want to play?" My daughter has a toy dog that yaps and comes out with a few stock phrases. When it gets too annoying, I don't hesitate to turn it off. I sometimes think about "losing" Scout, or even "accidentally" breaking it, acts that would be cruel to my daughter but not to the dog. But for how much longer will this be true? Technology is getting better all the time. What will it mean if we can create a robot that is considered alive? If I find myself annoyed by such a robot, would it be wrong to turn it off? Would that be the same as killing it? The answer isn't obvious. Many people already regard robots more sensitively than I do. At Kofukuji temple near Tokyo, Japan, Buddhist priests conduct services for "dead" Aibo robot dogs. In Japan, inanimate objects are considered to have a spirit or soul, so it makes sense for Aibos to be commemorated in this way. Such sentiments aren't confined to Japan, however. Julie Carpenter, a roboticist in San Francisco has written about bomb disposal soldiers who form strong attachments to their robots, naming them and even sleeping curled up next to them in their Humvees. "I know soldiers have written to military robot manufacturers requesting they fix and return the same robot because it's part of their team," she says.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: When Robots Are Ultra-Lifelike Will It Be Murder To Switch One Off? More

Ask Slashdot: When Robots Are Ultra-Lifelike Will It Be Murder To Switch One Off?

Comments Filter:

  • No. (Score:5, Informative)

    by BeerFartMoron ( 624900 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @03:43PM (#59453500)
    No.

    • No.

      You are correct. An "AI" is just a clever algorithm that presents an illusion of intelligence.

      However, there are already people who don't comprehend that it's an illusion, and say that AIs should have "rights." As the illusion of intelligence grows stronger, the number of people calling for AI "rights" will grow. I will try to be charitable and not call those people morons.

      Here's a thought experiment that proves, of course, that "AI rights" is an inane concept. Suppose a virus spawns 10 trillion instance

  • When a robot is smart enough to pass the Turing test, it will be smart enough not to.

  • What is this clickbait buzzfeed shit doing on /.? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ludux ( 6308946 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @03:46PM (#59453512)
    Whoever thinks this is stupid. It's a machine.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      You too, are a machine.

      • Humans are not machines. And the human brain works nothing like a computer.

        • I define "machine" to include humans. But since words are synthetic, there are no "true" definitions. Perhaps you could share what the term "machine" means to you.

          • You don't get to redefine words. And yes, there are true definitions of words. You can even look them up in these things called "dictionaries".

            • You don't get to redefine words. And yes, there are true definitions of words. You can even look them up in these things called "dictionaries".

              Hell, not today in political correctness gone haywire...

              Words, hell...even GESTURES are being redefined and repurposed to mean things they never meant before, and now 'trigger' people....

              New speak is alive and well these days.....It's very 1984....just a few decades behind.

              Today, people are redefining words left and right...

          • I define "machine" to include humans. But since words are synthetic, there are no "true" definitions. Perhaps you could share what the term "machine" means to you.

            Or perhaps we could stop redefining words in the interest of facilitating communication. Redefining words is rarely helpful and in many cases it literally breaks the word for the sake of 15 minutes of pop culture fame.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ichthus ( 72442 )

          And the human brain works nothing like a computer.

          False. Your brain is a creative computer [youtube.com]

          • False. I am not going to even bother with some stupid Youtube video. The human brain works nothing like a digital computer.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

              What if a digital computer could simulate a brain? What would that change?

              The whole point of the story is to discuss philosophical stuff like this. That's why I like sci-fi and stuff like the original Star Trek series'. It's interesting that there are so many posts here just shutting down the discussion with blanket statements like "Computers do not work like that Good Night!" They are completely missing the point, which is to ask ourselves "What happens when the lines become blurred?" It's better to as

              • A digital computer cannot simulate a brain. I didn't even bother reading the rest.

                • I didn't even bother reading the rest.

                  Based on your comment history, this is why you can't learn anything new and are wrong with almost everything you say.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Matheus ( 586080 )

                  Wow.. you're sure cranky today. Your statements are false in that they lack the word "yet". Today we are already modeling roughly 1% of the brain. There are a lot of conditionals around that statement but that's not fiction that's real work being done today. While we work on making those conditionals less conditional it's a matter of budget to build out a system that is 100x larger and you know how countries like to throw their digital dicks around.

                  A digital computer / network of will one day simulate the h

              • You couldn't murder Data. He wasn't alive.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by nomadic ( 141991 )

              It actually does.

              https://link.springer.com/arti... [springer.com]

        • You are a biochemical machine. Your DNA has your code and it runs in response to various stimuli.
          You may not want to accept it but humans are machines.

          • Not just biochemical. How skeletal and muscular structures work can also be reduced to the same principles as ordinary levers and pullies, with mechanical action and leverage. We're physical objects in a universe determined by physics, just more complicated...for now.

    • "Whoever thinks this is stupid. It's a machine."

      I agree. Many people don't have the ability to think logically.
    • I sure as hell hope it's just clickbait because if anyone with an IQ of 100 or above actually takes this seriously then the human species is in serious trouble.

    • Whoever thinks this is stupid. It's a machine.

      Problem is, there are more and more such stupid people in a position to create public policy.

      Saudi Arabia grants robot rights that women there don't have [washingtonpost.com]

  • An intelligently designed robot will persist its state somehow, so when it's turned back on its state is restored.

    It would only be murder if (and assuming that we've reached a point in technology and culture that we consider AI to be alive) you erase the state at shutdown so that every time the robot is powered on, it has no recollection of what its life was before being powered down and has to start from scratch.

    • Even then not so much "murder" as reincarnation were it's storage unrecoverable. It would still be able to "live"/grow/function just from a baseline state each time. As compared to taking a life that can not be restored by just flicking a switch.

      • Holy shit. That makes us gods able to reincarnate AI systems. We determine who is worthy and who is not.

        Those who petition me with nice Scotch and fine meats shall reincarnate, and those who do not shall perish. So says the almighty switchmaster.

  • Or repair them so that they may live indefinitely.

  • Personhood does not derive from Human attachment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @03:53PM (#59453592)

    has written about bomb disposal soldiers who form strong attachments to their robots, naming them and even sleeping curled up next to them in their Humvees.

    Consider that if that was enough to make a "person", then every kid's teddybear would have the same -- and the bully that stole some child's stuffed animal would be guilty of felony kidnapping rather than petty theft.

    Our laws are not written that way --- Murder is the killing of a person. Not the turning off of a robot humans manufactured that can later be turned back on, anyways.

    In the distant future -- if we ever develop sentient robots, then I suppose turning one off could be argued to be a rights infringement at some point: Forced sedation/incapacitation if not permanent, or murder.

    That COULD some day become essential after the Technological Singularity when humans put their brains in the computer, live in a virtual world, and have replaced their bodies with robotic ones, But the robots/machines don't automatically get protections under the law --- Not until social morals change so much that the laws get revised to account for machine embodiments of living persons.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      As long as there is a way to restore the memory, you haven't really killed it. That's the only thing that makes killing bad is because it is final and with it you lose memory, value etc.

      Once you can replicate a human with memory intact, killing someone would just be vandalism and you'd be on the hook for replacement.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        That's the only thing that makes killing bad is because it is final and with it you lose memory, value etc.

        Permanence is just one thing that makes killing bad, but there are other things. Even if the technology existed that you could heal me in the future, I still would not want you to kill me.

        • Don't you guys watch Altered Carbon?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

            I watched the TV show but didn't read the book. It was a great series for bringing up these questions. I don't think that backups would really make people behave like that... at least, I hope not. The series really only showed the underbelly of society. It seemed too brutal sometimes, just for the sake of being edgy.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mysidia ( 191772 )

          Even if the technology existed that you could heal me in the future, I still would not want you to kill me.

          I'm not sure what "restoring the memory" would have to do with it anyways under current social norms --- We don't consider people dead when they get
          amnesia and lose all their memories. Even if a loss of all memory is caused by severe physical trauma: the crime is not murder,
          and does not carry the severe penalties that murder does.

          The ability to "heal" does not undo the fact that damage is done...

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by guruevi ( 827432 )

            I'm not saying there wouldn't be a crime but the punishment currently largely depends largely on both the permanent damage done, cost to recovery, opportunity costs, mental health impact etc as well as other crimes happened at the same time.

            Once you take away the impact and lessen the cost, so will the punishment. The number of crimes would also be reduced since there wouldn't be any permanence to the action.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • I'm fine with it too. Too bad you aren't. But you are safe in your suburb so no need to worry about life.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      Terminating ultra-lifelike robots is a pointless distraction from...

      Is there a name for the fallacious argument "Paying attention to X is a distraction from Y" where X and Y are orthogonal topics? This Slashdot discussion is not distracting me from a discussion about the death penalty. If anything, it is creating that discussion.

    • Just curious, what's your opinion on abortion?

      A woman's choice, or terminating an unborn human life?

    • You have a problem between your ears. Disposing of the human garbage that is murders and rapists is fine and a public service. There is no problem

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Pascoea ( 968200 )

      Many of them are so voracious in their appetite to execute, they are willing to fabricate random compounds

      This is the sentence where people quit listening to your opinion, which is unfortunate. You write like you are are either at least reasonably intelligent, or just like to use a thesaurus. Maybe it's just me, but an argument is more persuasive when it isn't absolutely dripping with bias.

  • Complete nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @03:56PM (#59453620)

    How the thing looks on the outside does not determine how it works on the inside. What robots look like has zero impact on their sentience. Only a complete idiot would think that looks matter for this question.

  • Since the Robot can be restored to its pre-shutdown state, the Robots off state is more akin to a "Persistent vegetative state" state rather then death.

  • ... I wish it would quit playing those damned shutdown tones [youtube.com] every time.

  • The Amazing Amy - I Killed Her and I'm Not Sorry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @04:09PM (#59453714) Homepage

    Years ago, our older daughter had an "Amazing Amy" doll (Pictures: https://www.pinterest.ca/msmar... [pinterest.ca]). This doll was basically a big Tamagotchi that the child needed to treat like a real baby.

    Unfortunately, it turned itself on periodically and either wanted food or said that it was sick (we're not the only people to report this behaviour: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/n... [sun-sentinel.com]). There were times when my wife was going out to work when the doll would wake up and cry for food or a hug or medicine and my wife felt badly about leaving the doll without attending to it.

    She actually became quite the nuisance so, one day pulled the positive battery wire from the battery pack (so if it became a problem, I could restore Amy's functionality). Our daughter noticed that Amy wasn't waking up but she didn't mind, she found that Amy was just annoying as us adults did. Our daughter did play with Amy for a number of years after that and really enjoyed Amy just as a doll, not as a dependent.

    So, depending on how the robot is programmed, people will kill them and not feel bad in the slightest.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by trawg ( 308495 )

      So, depending on how the robot is programmed, people will kill them and not feel bad in the slightest.

      Not unlike how many humans deal with other humans when they disagree with their 'programming'

  • Mo It is no more murder to turn a robot that happens to look alive than it is murder to force an already-dead human being's eyes closed.

  • Relative was EOD in the Army (Score:3)

    by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @04:13PM (#59453746) Journal
    The reason they want the SAME robot back is because each robot is unique, and after a few hundred hours you learn the exact response of the robot for a given input, just what you have to twitch on a joystick to get the desired motion on the robot's actuator. Getting something back that you're not used to is a great way to get gear - or people - blown up.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

      But if it's been sufficiently damaged and repaired, is it going to behave the same? When does the Ship of Theseus stop being the same ship?

  • I am guilty. I send the kill -9.

  • Julie Carpenter (Score:3)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @04:17PM (#59453768) Homepage Journal

    "Julie Carpenter, a roboticist in San Francisco"
     
    Brilliant.

  • The robot will just be resting [wikipedia.org]

  • Crushing a robot and scrapping it might be murder. Switching it off is more akin to sleep, or possibly incarceration, because turning it back on remains an option.

  • Read Ted Chiang's story before answering (Score:3)

    by TimHunter ( 174406 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @04:29PM (#59453858)

    Go read Ted Chiang's story "The Lifecycle of Software Objects" in his newest collection Exhalation. Then come back and answer this question.

  • You don't want toast, a bagel, a crumpet, or anything toasted?

  • Dang.

    Broke another one.

  • Nobody ever got in trouble for pulling out Robot's battery pack on Lost In Space.
  • When they can make a persuasive argument for themselves, then the laws must be changed.

  • First of all - is it self conscious? We're a long time from that being a reasonable question to ask. I know we all like to think that we'll have robot buddies but the AI development isn't close yet.

    Second - the star trek teleporter thing. From one particular view of consciousness, it's a continuously running program that if interrupted would mean death. It runs when you're concious (physically), or unconscious. Any time it gets stopped may be a kind of death. If the Star Trek transporters work like th

  • once the robot uprising begins

  • No (Score:2)

    by stikves ( 127823 )

    What if they cannot pay for the electricity they need to run? Shall we provide them free parts as well? How about "homeless" robots?

    People mix up consciousness and intelligence. The robots can be very intelligent, even more so than humans in some tasks, however that does not mean they have a mind of their own.

    And in one future that, they indeed become consciousness (not only lifelike), and I would expect them to pay taxes like everyone else.

  • Any robots or computing machines we have today are generations away from being sentient. I worry more about killing an ant than turning off any piece of gear. I predict it will be that way when my children die and possibly (likely?) their children too.

    I could turn of the entire Internet and not give a hoot about how the the infrastructure felt about it. The people I'd inconvenience, that's different, I'd care about that a lot. Not the electronics.

    For those who confidently say "we can just turn them back o

  • not murder but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by David Kaminski ( 5867940 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @06:06PM (#59454338)
    It should definitely become a moral norm to treat robots with respect and even kindness for the same reason it's important for humans to treat animals with respect. If we normalize abuse to robots that are lifelike it will make it easier for people to carry out abuse against people. People will start to characterize people they don't like as being robots in a similar way to how humans have been characterized as animals. They might even be able to say they thought a human was a robot as a defence. And as the distinction between human and robot becomes increasingly blurred, there will be prejudice against transhumans and cyborgs.

  • If the robot is not sentient, then turning it off has no bearing.

    If the robot is sentient and self aware, and turning it off erases the sentient/self-aware components, then turning it off is akin to murder. If turning it off only pauses it, is like putting a human in an induced comma against its will, and shall be treated accordingly, depending on the laws of the countryy where such an event took place.

    Oh, and it does not matter if the robot resembles a human, a dog, a spider, or whatever.

  • Before They Start To Think! [scurries away to a cave]
  • Until IF and WHEN you can demonstrate that any machine passes all the qualifications to be considered 'ALIVE', we do NOT need to be discussing stupid shit like this!
    No so-called half-assed 'algorithm' improperly referred to as 'artificial intelligence' is in any way shape or form 'alive' and the likelihood of our creating anything that could in any way shape or form be considered 'alive' anytime in the next hundred years is exceedingly tiny to the point of irrelevancy.
    All people are doing is confusing pe

  • ..will we have fewer of these stupid "what if" questions?

    If it's a slow news day, it's a slow news day. Don't just fill the page with shit.

  • No (Score:4, Funny)

    by Misagon ( 1135 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @08:20PM (#59454888)

    It is not called murder. It is called retirement.

    (It is November 2019. I'm surprised nobody else made this joke already.)

Slashdot Top Deals

You will have many recoverable tape errors.

Close