Ethics: Humoids?

[Stryder]

While surfing for something completely unconnected I found a website containing various treasures in regards to things that it reports. I might of stumbled upon the site once before or one just like it but none the less I'm amusing myself looking at the various topical things found there.

One such thing is Albert HUBO It's taken the HUBO robotic system with an animatronic head molded into that of the face of Albert Einstein.

While the company (Well Research Groups) at the heart of the project are working towards a future of Autonomous helpers within out society, it gives the ethical question as to if a machine should attempt to be made to look and act like a human or be blatantly a machine.

In such films as 'Sphere' it was touched upon the question that should something appear sentient that it would likely be dangerous if it expresses 'feelings'. The reason for this is because one visual representation of a feeling could be shown and cause a misrepresentation which in turn cause the wrong kind of interaction which might or might not have deadly consequences.

i.e.
Imagine a robot with a humanised face dangles a child precariously off the edge of a building, The child believes that this 'toy' is 'playing' with him as it smiles at the child, the child giggles excitedly at seeing the ground below it and smiles back to the machine, with that the machine lets go of the child still smiling as the child hurtles towards the ground.

The machine isn't necessarily programmed to realise the danger, it's method of play might have been 'artificially learnt' from playing with the infant prior.

So the ethical query is if it's such a good idea to allow machines to have such visual assimilated moods and for us to attempt to connect true human emotions to them?

 

[decantemix]

BEWARE HUMANS: Your thoughts are not your own.
F1600006158|BITShi*ft.

Lead astray, go away, dem's da rules...

 

[one_raven]

If the child grew to like and trust the blatant machine the scenario would be no different.
I don't see the problem.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Watch the movie "Bicentennial Man." It does a really good job with the questions this scenario raises. Sure it's billed as a comedy and has plenty of laughs, but it takes itself very seriously.

 

[decantemix]

Sounds more like one of them skits, comic, on I-Robot. that stuff's real.

You know, when one of the robots, 556 I think, went berzerk, and caught a virus he had made earlier, in attack form.

Then, well I'm afraid it wasn't pretty.
Sure did, he took of his process, sub-booted, then lept. Crashing, of course into the mainframe. The this guy, Will I Am. Comes blazing in, shoots the damn thing, and wastsshs two, count 'em 2, whole clips. DumbA.

 

[Blindman]

Look out we will be banning teddy bears, dolls and any humanised artefact.

I see no ethical dilemma in humanising robots, there are plenty on the market already in the form of children’s toys with many more sophisticated toys on the drawing boards.

Play is important in growth and learning. Children’s play is geared towards learning skills that will help us cope with adult hood. Having machines (toys) that show realistic human emotions will help children learn social skill, just the same as playing with real people.

A toy that can respond to human emotions will be much better at entertaining and engaging the young mind. More play means smarter adults.

There is offcourse inherent danger in all human activities. Allowing a robot to dangle a child over the edge of a building is down right irresponsible. There is always a duty of care and a parent that allows a child to play with a dangerous toy should be held accountable. A company that creates a dangerous toy is held responsible.

We must not fear technology, we should learn from an early age how to care for and look after technology. Learn how it can benefit and help us be better human beings.

 

[decantemix]

Remorse, a word I most certainly used. Can be inflicted. Hope for the Best...
You see, when you want to see the technology attack all life forms, for you, as you were you're own little arcade owner. You may find 'dem G-Forces. Spin-off...

 

[scifitm]

I have two opposing opinions on the matter. 1.) There's an effect when something looks "almost" humanoid, but slightly off that triggers alarms in our minds. Video game designers are tackling this problem now with CG getting as advanced as it is. When something looks almost human but not quite it scares the crap out of us which could lead to very bad instances. 2.) There's always the factor that we might want to know if we're speaking to an A.I. or a biological human - and if we make them exactly alike, and assuming the intelligence has caught up, how would you tell? I believe there needs to be an inherent mark of distinguishment whatever it might be to delineate between humans and robo-men, even if it's only a copyright symbol etc.

 

[ak.R]

limits for human simulations

the problem could be compared to the case where a foreighner with different values and cultures is facing another culture.
mutual adaptation of humans and technology is a continuous problem, making technology products more humane would depend heavily on our understanding of human nature, wether as factual or as ambition.
human simulation might actually serve that purpose..this however does not necessitates dessimination of such technology..
I think the danger of a technology take over, or humans fusing with machines is not necessarily more likely in the presence of a setup of human like robots.
we need to think more about these issues and the choices we have as a society beyond certain company decisions..

 

[nietzschefan]

Watch the movie "Bicentennial Man." It does a really good job with the questions this scenario raises. Sure it's billed as a comedy and has plenty of laughs, but it takes itself very seriously.

Basically Asimov's I Robot on the big screen (not that Will Smith trash).