Home
News
In Focus
Business
Metro
Nation
World
Sports
Feature
Opinion
View more »Opinion Columns
Wan LixinOpinion deputy editor of Shanghai Daily
Forum emphasizes BRI cooperation between China and Arab countries
Rights to lower sleeper berths should be softened by empathy for fellow passengers
Sunday
- Subscribe
Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
On robots for sex, baby sitting, warfare
By Peter Singer and Agata Sagan |
December 17, 2009, Thursday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
LAST month, Gecko Systems announced that it had been running trials of its "fully autonomous personal companion home care robot," also known as a "carebot," designed to help elderly or disabled people to live independently.
A woman with short-term memory loss broke into a big smile, the company reported, when the robot asked her, "Would you like a bowl of ice cream?" The woman answered "yes," and presumably the robot did the rest.
Robots already perform many functions, from making cars to defusing bombs - or, more menacingly, firing missiles. Most of the robots being developed for home use are functional in design - Gecko System's home-care robot looks rather like the Star Wars robot R2-D2. Honda and Sony are designing robots that look more like the same movie's "android" C-3PO.
There are already some robots, though, with soft, flexible bodies, human-like faces and expressions, and a large repertoire of movement. Hanson Robotics has a demonstration model called Albert, whose face bears a striking resemblance to that of Albert Einstein.
Will we soon get used to having humanoid robots around the home? Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the University of Sheffield, UK, has predicted that busy parents will start employing robots as baby sitters. What will it do to a child, he asks, to spend a lot of time with a machine that cannot express genuine empathy, understanding, or compassion?
One might also ask why we should develop energy-intensive robots to work in one of the few areas - care for children or elderly people - in which people with little education can find employment.
In his book "Love and Sex with Robots," David Levy goes further, suggesting that we will fall in love with warm, cuddly robots, and even have sex with them. (If the robot has multiple sexual partners, just remove the relevant parts, drop them in disinfectant, and no risk of sexually transmitted diseases!)
But what will the presence of a "sexbot" do to the marital home?
How will we feel if our spouse starts spending too much time with an inexhaustible robotic lover?
A more ominous question is familiar from novels and movies: Will we have to defend our civilization against intelligent machines of our own creation?
Is it time to start thinking about what steps to take to prevent our own creations from becoming hostile to us?
For the moment, a more realistic concern is not that robots will harm us, but that we will harm them. At present, robots are mere items of property.
But what if they become sufficiently complex to have feelings?
After all, isn't the human brain just a very complex machine? If machines can and do become conscious, will we take their feelings into account?
The history of our relations with the only nonhuman sentient beings we have encountered so far - animals - gives no ground for confidence that we would recognize sentient robots not just as items of property, but as beings with moral standing and interests that deserve consideration.
The cognitive scientist Steve Torrance has pointed out that powerful new technologies, like cars, computers, and phones, tend to spread rapidly, in an uncontrolled way. The development of a conscious robot that (who?) was not widely perceived as a member of our moral community could therefore lead to mistreatment on a large scale.
The hard question, of course, is how we could tell that a robot really was conscious, and not just designed to mimic consciousness.
Understanding how the robot had been programmed would provide a clue - did the designers write the code to provide only the appearance of consciousness? If so, we would have no reason to believe that the robot was conscious.
But if the robot was designed to have human-like capacities that might incidentally give rise to consciousness, we would have a good reason to think that it really was conscious. At that point, the movement for robot rights would begin.
(The author is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. Agata Sagan is an independent researcher living in Warsaw. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009. www.project-syndicate.org.)
A woman with short-term memory loss broke into a big smile, the company reported, when the robot asked her, "Would you like a bowl of ice cream?" The woman answered "yes," and presumably the robot did the rest.
Robots already perform many functions, from making cars to defusing bombs - or, more menacingly, firing missiles. Most of the robots being developed for home use are functional in design - Gecko System's home-care robot looks rather like the Star Wars robot R2-D2. Honda and Sony are designing robots that look more like the same movie's "android" C-3PO.
There are already some robots, though, with soft, flexible bodies, human-like faces and expressions, and a large repertoire of movement. Hanson Robotics has a demonstration model called Albert, whose face bears a striking resemblance to that of Albert Einstein.
Will we soon get used to having humanoid robots around the home? Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the University of Sheffield, UK, has predicted that busy parents will start employing robots as baby sitters. What will it do to a child, he asks, to spend a lot of time with a machine that cannot express genuine empathy, understanding, or compassion?
One might also ask why we should develop energy-intensive robots to work in one of the few areas - care for children or elderly people - in which people with little education can find employment.
In his book "Love and Sex with Robots," David Levy goes further, suggesting that we will fall in love with warm, cuddly robots, and even have sex with them. (If the robot has multiple sexual partners, just remove the relevant parts, drop them in disinfectant, and no risk of sexually transmitted diseases!)
But what will the presence of a "sexbot" do to the marital home?
How will we feel if our spouse starts spending too much time with an inexhaustible robotic lover?
A more ominous question is familiar from novels and movies: Will we have to defend our civilization against intelligent machines of our own creation?
Is it time to start thinking about what steps to take to prevent our own creations from becoming hostile to us?
For the moment, a more realistic concern is not that robots will harm us, but that we will harm them. At present, robots are mere items of property.
But what if they become sufficiently complex to have feelings?
After all, isn't the human brain just a very complex machine? If machines can and do become conscious, will we take their feelings into account?
The history of our relations with the only nonhuman sentient beings we have encountered so far - animals - gives no ground for confidence that we would recognize sentient robots not just as items of property, but as beings with moral standing and interests that deserve consideration.
The cognitive scientist Steve Torrance has pointed out that powerful new technologies, like cars, computers, and phones, tend to spread rapidly, in an uncontrolled way. The development of a conscious robot that (who?) was not widely perceived as a member of our moral community could therefore lead to mistreatment on a large scale.
The hard question, of course, is how we could tell that a robot really was conscious, and not just designed to mimic consciousness.
Understanding how the robot had been programmed would provide a clue - did the designers write the code to provide only the appearance of consciousness? If so, we would have no reason to believe that the robot was conscious.
But if the robot was designed to have human-like capacities that might incidentally give rise to consciousness, we would have a good reason to think that it really was conscious. At that point, the movement for robot rights would begin.
(The author is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. Agata Sagan is an independent researcher living in Warsaw. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009. www.project-syndicate.org.)
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
