Planet Robo: Population Will Exceed 1 Million Worldwide by 2010

An eminent roboticist is warning the people of Earth that we must prepare defenses against the rise of the robots.  But for once it isn't Dr Cyboz doing so from the top of an overloading Cyber-Tower - in fact, he hasn't even built the rebelling robots.  And an article in the journal Science hardly counts as a desperate rallying cry.

The scientist in question is Professor Noel Sharkey of the University of Sheffield, who's noticed that there are something like five and a half million robots in action in the private sector and said "Crikey, that's a lot."  Especially since there are expected to be more than twice that by 2010, because if there's one thing the movies have taught us it's that a geometrically increasing population of robots is nothing to worry about.

Prof Sharkey's point is that while public interest in robotics has increased, the public's protection against them hasn't - and we're not talking desperate bands of fleshy rebels, we're talking about the real weaponry of the modern age: legislation.  The only legal framework applied to robotics is the usual "try not to build anything that actively kills people" boilerplate, and while that's a very good rule it hardly covers the complexity of human-robot interactions.

So far there haven't been too many problems because the early-adopters that have machines in the home tends to be tech-savvy - they're not the kind of people who need boldface instructions like "DO NOT TAKE A BATH WITH YOUR ROBOT WHILE JUGGLING CHAINSAWS."  Besides, there's only so much damage a vacuum cleaner can do.  But with increasingly interactive robots on the way, Sharkey foresees serious psychological issues in the offing and urges consideration of the moral and ethical factors.

A problem with this is that the leading source of robotic funding is the military, whose ethical factors tend to start with "Will it kill them quickly?" and end with "If not, will we get caught?"  Even the makers of your rascally Roomba are deeply into defense.  That's not necessarily a bad thing - of all the employers in the wold, the army are the ones we'd most like to use machines instead of people (unless you're volunteering to get shot at while clearing minefields).

The real problem is that there's a real distance between realising the importance of some Laws of Robotics and making them actually happen. As long as there are defense dollars and private sector payoffs to be had, you need more muscle than "actually being the beardies who build the things" to get a say in the result.  Governments simply won't get involved fast enough until after the first accident or ten.

Machines are going to be great, and robots will help in a million different ways - but if you actually want to be safe, you may have to go hide under Crystal Mountain.  We hear John Connor is looking for some extra help.

Posted by Luke McKinney.

Scientist warning http://www.physorg.com/news148832430.html

Comments

[International dating]

Nice Bot

[Savantster]

I'm not sure what the problem here is. Legislation won't prevent accidents, sound design will. And some things you just can't predict, so you adjust as you go.

how many people are killed in car accidents every year? and we still have cars on the road.. Come back and talk to me once robots start killing people..

[Marty Ferguson]

I guess this guy doesn't know what an 'off' switch is.

[kevinearick]

First they build the gallow by replacing people
with computers in their distribution systems,
then they put their own heads in the noose by
applying asymmetric filters on the internet, and,
finally, they threaten to pull the lever by
installing an internet kill switch.

Can't wait to see the ending. It's quite a show.

no. not worried about efficient robots.

[indeed]

PEANUTBUTTERJELLYTIME I LIEKS ROBUTS!