Servo - September 2016

Mind / Iron

by Bryan Bergeron, Editor ª

Published Monthly By

T & L Publications, Inc.

430 Princeland Ct., Corona, CA 92879-1300

(951) 371-8497

FAX (951) 371-3052

Webstore Only 1-800-783-4624

www.servomagazine.com

Subscriptions Toll Free 1-877-525-2539

Outside US 1-818-487-4545

P.O. Box 15277, N. Hollywood, CA 91615

PUBLISHER

Larry Lemieux

publisher@servomagazine.com

ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER/ ADVERTISING SALES

Robin Lemieux

robin@servomagazine.com

EDITOR

Bryan Bergeron

techedit-servo@yahoo.com

VP of OPERATIONS

Vern Graner

vern@servomagazine.com

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Tom Carroll Kevin Berry R. Steven Rainwater Michael Simpson Steve Koci John Leeman Jeff Eckert Jenn Eckert Steven Nelson Holden Berry Chris Savage Mark Elam Henry Aird

CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT

subscribe@servomagazine.com

WEBSTORE MARKETING COVER GRAPHICS

Brian Kirkpatrick

sales@servomagazine.com

WEBSTORE MANAGER/ PRODUCTION

Sean Lemieux

sean@servomagazine.com

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

T & L Publications, Inc.

All advertising is subject to publisher’s approval. We are not responsible for mistakes, misprints, or typographical errors. SERVO Magazine assumes no responsibility for the availability or condition of advertised items or for the honesty of the advertiser. The publisher makes no claims for the legality of any item advertised in SERVO. This is the sole responsibility of the advertiser. Advertisers and their agencies agree to indemnify and protect the publisher from any and all claims, action, or expense arising from advertising placed in SERVO. Please send all editorial correspondence, UPS, overnight mail, and artwork to: 430 Princeland Court, Corona, CA 92879.

ERVO FOR THE ROBOT INNOVATOR

6 SERVO 09.2016

Two unrelated events that occurred this summer involving robotic systems point out the serious side of robotics. The first is the traffic fatality associated with the semi-autonomous self-driving feature of the Tesla. The second event is the use of a bomb-carrying robot to kill a civilian suspected of killing several policemen in Dallas. These two events — both the first of their kind — clearly fall within the purview of what robotics is designed to handle: the dull, dirty, and dangerous.

At the time of this writing, the blame for the driver fatality hasn’t been placed on either the driver or the Tesla, and that isn’t the point. What matters is how the accident foreshadows our increasing dependence on and interaction with automated systems. At some point in the future, fatalities associated with automated trains, planes, and cars will no longer make front line news. While hopefully rare, these events will simply be expected because machines, programmers, and human users aren’t perfect. Even if they were, there’s no avoiding someone intent on causing an incident. As far as I know, a smart car capable of avoiding a human driver intent on causing a head-on collision has yet to be developed, or even contemplated.

The use of bomb-carrying robots is certainly nothing new in the military. Guided missiles of all sorts have been around for decades. What’s new is the use on a civilian on US soil, and that makes the event more real — at least to me. I can’t help thinking of SkyNet in the Terminator movies or of the RoboCop series. I’m not saying that robotics shouldn’t be used to save lives in a situation like that in Texas, just that the implications for future armed robotic systems deployed domestically are worth considering. For example, I’m all for developing drones to support our troops overseas, but I’m not ready for armed drones to be circling overhead in Boston.

Clearly, gone are the Three Laws of Robotics as proposed by the sci-fi writer, Asimov: • A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

• A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

• A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

If I may offer a more pragmatic, modern set of laws that follows current use patterns, they would read as follows: • A robot may not injure a second human being or, through inaction, allow a second human being to come to harm, unless directed to do so by a first human being, either through software instruction or direct command.

• A robot must obey the orders given it by the first human being, with direct command taking priority over software instructions.

• A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not endanger the first human being.

In my set of laws, there’s clearly an “us versus them” backdrop, with the second humans that deserve to be harmed as separate from the first humans who are in control of the robots.

I’m sure we’ll work out the technical issues in self-driving cars, weaponized robots, and the like. I’m much less certain that the humans involved in the decision making of when and how to rely on these technologies will consistently make the right choices. I’m much more comfortable with Asimov’s proposed laws than I am with my set of laws.