General Misc > Misc

robot ethics

<< < (3/3)

True but one could argue that despite human casualties or machine casualties, just leaving them
to their own devices is still a morally weak point of view...
The change of strategy is to prevent more human loss of's hard to argue if we are
or are not doing the 'right thing' by staying in Iraq, and my argument isn't really directed
at Iraq in particular...just the fact that maybe doing the right thing will always cost something.
So why not make it cost less human lives and take the sting out of the cost...

I really don't want to get into the argument of Iraq because then toes get stepped on and people
get angry and that concrete example leads to to much emotion being put into what is supposed
to be  a logical discussion.

My view point is this: Robots are a tool that can be used to keep humans safer. We should use
them where appropriate. But if we never make robots to use in situations and mess up, we can
never evaluate their usefullness accurately... We need more data on how robots will be used and
what will become standard practice before we condemn their use. Its seems like a matter of
science for me...

"Non-lethal weapons," while not always non-lethal, are usually designed to inflict pain.  It's really a method of torture and harassment.  Prison is actually a non-lethal weapon of deprivation.  They're not all bad, but they could become that way.  When they're used to silence the people, for instance.

just found this site by complete accident today:

it has four pages of articles on ethics in robotics, relating to education, playing God, AI, and old people . . .

(if that links dies, it appears they are slowly moving their site to here:


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version