The 3 Laws Are on Their Way?
Listening to: Dinosaur Adventure 3D - Underworld
The South Koreans are putting together a Robot Ethics Charter:
An ethical code to prevent humans abusing robots, and vice versa, is being drawn up by South Korea.
The Robot Ethics Charter will cover standards for users and manufacturers and will be released later in 2007.
…
The new guidelines could reflect the three laws of robotics put forward by author Isaac Asimov in his short story Runaround in 1942, she said.
Asimov’s three laws are:
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey 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 Law.
Later stories saw the introduction of the Zeroth Law:
“A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.”
For me this is really interesting because it is an example of the sorts of ideas put forward by Bill Joy many years ago. Poo-poo’d at the time I am very confident that these are ideas that will gain a lot more currency - not taking responsibility has been shown to be a failed business strategy (when judged on metrics like longevity and sustainability).



March 7th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Depends on their definition of a ‘robot’ in the first place. What’s a machine gun? (a robotic machine, but in most cases a human activates the trigger). And what about the robotic technology various military (namely the US and Israel) are reportedly working on? Is an armed ’spy plane’ or ‘insect missle’ a ‘robot’ or a ‘human guided machine’? You can bet the miliary will create it’s own definitions of a robot to suit their needs.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
LOL! Well given that the definition of human has been up for debate for a good chunk of human history I guess we’re just going to cover the same ground.
One of the key aspects of definition of a robot is the device’s ability to react and decide based on input from it’s environment. Is a plain ol’ machine gun a robot? No, because it lacks the ‘decision’ bit. I do agree that there are any number of other military toys that are open to interpretation.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
a google for “machine gun robot” returns some scarey sh*t
I’m no longer a fan of SAMSUNG
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-nz&q=machine gun robot&btnG=Search&meta=
April 14th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
[…] A little while back I linked to a story about the ‘3 Laws’ and the Korean robotics industry. Zef raised an interesting question about military devices. It turns out that there is some thought about the laws governing military robotics: […]