robot law 101?

Post from Alan Brown:

Alan Brown

I recently spent a weekend at a conference, We Robot, listening to lawyers and technologists discuss the implications of autonomous robots. It was an eye-opener. Especially because nearly everyone at the conference truly believed that we needed to set standards now, because autonomous robots are about to make a real impact on our lives.

There has been a real explosion in robot capabilities. Only eight years ago, economists Frank Levy and Richard Murnane analyzed what tasks humans and computers did best. The argued that robots were unlikely to replace humans in tasks where rules were difficult to understand, such as driving a truck.

Last week, Nevada licensed Google’s driverless (as in “autonomous”) cars to drive on state roads. That didn’t take long.

More is coming. That is why A. Michael Froomkin, a Miami Law professor, organized the We Robot conference. “Robots are approaching a takeoff point,” he said. Within the next decade, we may find thousands and then millions of autonomous robots working along side us.

Froomkin has seen it before. He began working on Internet law in the early 1990s. By then, engineers had already deployed key standards. And because they were thinking about technology and efficiency, rather than security or privacy, they could not build those concerns into the core of the emerging online network.

Froomkin wants to avoid that mistake. “Thanks to events like this one, people can get in on the ground floor and make our concerns known,” he said.

It will not be easy. The conference’s first paper asked how the law should think about autonomous robots. It was authored by University of Washington’s Neil Richards, a law professor, and Bill Smart, a computer scientist.

It soon turned into a debate about the nature of autonomous robots themselves. One group argued that robots are tools, and that users directed them the same way they control a hammer.

A second group compared them to horses. While we can train, harness, and contain these animals, the law has long recognized that horses have a mind of their own. They can panic, bolt, break their harness or jump a fence. The law acknowledges this and does not fault the owner who tries his or her best to restrain his animal.

The argument went back and forth, with good points on both sides. I’ll come back to some other aspects of the conference in a future post.

1 Response to “robot law 101?”

  1. May 1, 2015 at 4:39 am

    Excellent blog you have here but I was curious if you knew of any community forums that cover the
    same topics talked about here? I’d really love to be a
    part of community where I can get suggestions from other experienced individuals that share the
    same interest. If you have any recommendations, please let me know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

The Editor

John G. Falcioni is Editor-in-Chief of Mechanical Engineering magazine, the flagship publication of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

May 2012

Twitter from John Falcioni

Twitter from Engineering for Change

%d bloggers like this: