Robotics and AI PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Robotics and AI PDF

Description

Robotics and AI

Overview of areas: Overview, Learning Objectives & Outcomes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

What is a robot? AI and deep learning Legal issues with AI Autonomous cars Legal issues with autonomous cars Care robots

Sources Essential reading M J Mataric, The Robotics Primer (MIT Press, 2007) chapters 1 and 3, http://hci.ucsd.edu/hutchins/cogs8/mataric-primer.pdf

To Summarize ● Thekeycomponentsofarobotaresensors,effectors,and controllers. ● Sensors provide information about the world and the robot itself. They define the sensory or perceptual space of the robot and allow it to know its state, which may be discrete, continuous, observable, partially observable, or hidden.

● ●

Effectorsandactuatorsprovidetheabilitytotakeactions.Theymaypro- vide locomotion or manipulation, depending on the type of robot: mobile or manipulator. Controllers Provide Autonomy,which may be partial or complete.

Robo-law: Regulating Emerging Robotic Technologies in Europe: Robotics facing Law and Ethics Final report, section 2 http://www.robolaw.eu/RoboLaw_files/documents/robolaw_d6.2_guidelinesregulating robotics_20140922.pdf

2. The RoboLaw project and the “Guidelines on regulating robotics” in the framework of Responsible Research andInnovation (RRI) The research on robotics and regulation has been undertaken with a constant point of reference to the EU policies on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI).2 The main concerns and meanings that are entrenched in this formula have been respected and applied both from a methodological and a substantial point of view. On the one side, an interdisciplinary approach has been a constant feature of the study from its inception. It was attained by integrating various disciplines and competences in the project’s structure and team. The diverse expertise of the researchers involved in the consortium (lawyers, philosophers, S&T studies experts, engineers) have led to a constant interaction aimed at exchanging information, opinions and perspectives in order for the suggested rules to be sound from a technical point of view, informed by an appraisal of the ethical issues at stake, and compliant with a general frame of reference that was derived from common fundamental values and more specific principles of the applicable law. Throughout the two-year research, multiple stakeholders were involved in the research process with the goal to include all possible relevant perspectives, including that of operators in the robotic industry and market, potential or actual users (e.g. person with disabilities, surgeons, care associations), insurers, society at large (see Di Carlo & Salvini, 2014). Dissemination activities throughout the project were carried out also with the aim of getting inputs and views from the public, as a way of ensuring public participation and integrating social views into the policy-making and regulatory processes (see Salvini, 2014a, 2014b). Moreover, an ethical appraisal of various robotic technologies in their potential scenarios of deployment has been carried out as a core research exercise within the project. Any legal evaluation should, in fact, take into account the problems that the former perspective sheds light on, so that it can inform the fashion in which new rules are tailored or the existing ones are to be interpreted. In other words, ethics of technology and of robotics in particular was not considered an autonomous exercise and deferred to experts of the field. Rather, it was seen as an integral part of the analysis leading to distinctive features of the proposed solutions. A methodology to perform the ethical analysis was drafted (Bisol, Carnevale & Lucivero, 2013) and then applied to the technologies we considered more deeply as a case in point (infra, § 2.1). The External Advisory Board3 also commented extensively on the analyses of technologies from the various disciplinary standpoints of its components. However, it especially focused on the use of the applied ethics conceptual apparatus in the evaluation carried out. On the normative side, the prospect of regulating robotics has had as points of reference the two requirements of ethical acceptability and orientation towards societal needs that identify the pillars of the concept of RRI. Not only do robotic products and applications have to comply with the core values embraced in the European context by the constitutional traditions of Member Statesand positively affirmed by the Charter on fundamental rights, but particular attention, and

possibly a peculiar legal status in some respects, should also be given to those that respond to societal needs, therefore contribute to achieve normative goals such as equality of opportunities, justice, solidarity and to improve the quality of life of the European citizens, especially the more deprived and vulnerable. The Capability Approach (infra, § 4.1) also provides an important normative framework in this respect. The input for regulating advancements in robotics coming from the researchers and the industries that operate in this sector is driven by concerns regarding safety, risks and liability. While taking into account these factors, which can act as barriers to innovation and development, the project’s roadmap has included other aspects that we deem should be an essential part of any attempt to contribute to the governance of science and technology. Issues of justice, solidarity, protection of fundamental rights, non discrimination and prevention of exclusion have been regarded as critical for the regulatory assessment of robotic technologies. 2.1 The ethical analysis embedded in the legal analysis In view of the RoboLaw project’s main goal that consists in tackling the regulatory challenges posed by emerging robotic technologies and drafting recommendations for the European Commission, a thorough and systematic ethical analysis of said technologies was also undertaken. This investigation was necessary in order to identify the challenges at stake and provide the subsequent legal analysis with conceptual tools able to portray both the values and the ethical drawbacks pinpointed in the current theoretical debate. In order to conduct ethical analyses for different types of robotic technologies in a coherent and comparable fashion, a methodology was drafted, that defines the type of ethical analysis that is more appropriate in the light of the final objective of the research, and how it should be conducted (Bisol, Carnevale & Lucivero, 2013). The method that has been described and adopted not only allows to situate the specific analyses against the backdrop of the current approach to ethical reasoning, but also tries to capture the issues that are more closely linked to the purpose of the RoboLaw’ project, and identify the guiding principles brought forward by the roboethics literature. One of the features of the chosen approach that permits to meet the RRI model is the inclusion of both the public debate on robotics and the academic literature, since they highlight different aspects and perspectives. Furthermore, a broad range of stakeholders were involved in the discussion concerning new technologies and their normative assumptions and positions were discerned, with the purpose of improving the process of governance of robotics by establishing the conditions for participation and democratic deliberation. Besides supporting a participatory method in the reconstruction of the issues at stake, a techno-ethic approach reveals values and human interests that robotic technologies may contribute to advance and uses them as guiding principle for the legal part of the regulatory endeavor. At the same time it provides institutions with the capacity to appraise the risks purported by robotic technologies, which have to be taken into account in responsible decision-making about the technologies in question. 2.2 Science, technology, and regulation intertwined. Any proposal for regulation of robotic technologies has to ground on the extant debate on the interplay between law, science and technology. The attention devoted to the contents of the law

to be adopted could not avoid to confront the debate on the kind(s) of regulation that is better suited for this task. A constant line of investigation throughout the research has focused on this relationship and addressed the multiple ways in which the regulator can tackle such an evolving object like technological development (D2.1, 2012; Palmerini & Stradella, 2013). Since the recognition that the dichotomy between science as a fact-finding domain and law as the realm of the “ought-to-be” no longer represents the reality, the mutual acknowledgment of the respective boundaries of science and policy has been replaced by a “co-production” regime (Jasanoff, 1990). The law is more and more involved in regulating scientific activities, products and results; at the same time legal intervention is often grounded on expert knowledge and scientific notions and concepts penetrate legal categories. The “double bind” between law and science truly produces a “hybrid knowledge” (Tallacchini, 2002: 339 f.), within which contributions from both actors complement each other and reciprocally elicit and legitimise its contents. New regulatory forms and an array of legal tools that can be deployed in order to capture this complex connection have been thoroughly analyzed in order to identify the sources of law at stake in the perspective of regulating technological development. The key elements to be taken into account in this endeavor are the transnational nature of technological innovation and its shifting and sometimes abruptly transforming nature; the technicalities inherent in the regulation process of such phenomena and the need to resort, to some extent, to technical delegation (Zei, 2013); the need to adhere to a set of fundamental principles shared at the European level (see § 4.1; Koops et al., 2014). These elements converge in order to indicate that a general frame of principles agreed at the European level would better serve the purpose of fostering innovation in the robotic domain in Europe, and giving the correspondent market an important push in terms of competitiveness with external markets. This framework should attain a twofold objective: on the one hand, it should contribute to identify the main goals and achievements expected by advancements in robotic research and industrial applications; on the other hand, it should serve to settle on a nucleus of core fundamental rights and freedoms that developments in the robotic field may infringe and that, on the contrary, have to be regarded as intangible. 2.2.1 Robotics and regulation by design Science and technology are no longer simply a target of regulation, but have become both a regulatory actor (through risk assessment/risk governance for instance) and a regulatory tool, by incorporating regulation and legal compliance into the technology itself. The concept of techno- regulation and propositions such as “code as law” and “normative technology” (Yeung & Koops, 2008) highlight the fact that technologies can play a regulatory role. Norms can be directly incorporated into technology in the sense that a command and the compliance to it are imbued in the technology itself. For instance, “privacy by design” – which means that data protection safeguards are built into products and services from the earliest stage of development – is deemed to become an essential principle in EU data protection regulation.4 As robots have to function in complex social environments, an increasing body of research and literature is investigating the utility and the feasibility of implementing in the machines an entire set of ethical and legal requirements, so that they behave according to social and legal

rules. A study accomplished within the project has shown that robots compliance to a given normative framework is extremely difficult to realize from a technical point of view, and can also be questioned under several other aspects, but is nonetheless important ‘to move from a focus on the regulation of human beings to a focus on the regulation of robots behavior through design’ (Lucivero & Leenes, 2014).

Clarke, Roger. "Asimov's laws of robotics: Implications for information technology. 1&2." Computer 27.1 (1994): 57-66. http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/Asimov.html ● Good for history of robotics and law of robotics background

Gifford, D.G., 2018. Technological Triggers to Tort Revolutions: Steam Locomotives, Autonomous Vehicles, and Accident Compensation. Journal of Tort Law, 11(1), pp.71-143. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3090636

Abstract: Waves of technological change explain the most important transformations of American tort law. In this Article, I begin by examining historical instances of this linkage. Following the Industrial Revolution, for example, machines, no longer humans and animals, powered production. With greater force, locomotives and other machines inflicted far more severe injuries. These dramatic technological changes prompted the replacement of the preexisting strict liability tort standard with the negligence regime. Similarly, later technological changes caused the enactment of workers’ compensation statutes, the implementation of automobile no-fault systems in some states and routinized automobile settlement practices in others that resemble a no-fault system, and the adoption of “strict” products liability. From thishistory, I derive a model explaining how technological innovation alters (1) the frequency of personal injuries, (2) the severity of such injuries, (3) the difficulty of proving claims, and (4) the new technology’s social utility. These four factors together determine the choice among three liability standards: strict liability, negligence, and no-fault liability with limited damages. I then apply this model to the looming technological revolution in which autonomous vehicles, robots, and other Artificial Intelligence machines will replace human decision-making as well as human force. I conclude that the liability system governing autonomous vehicles is likely to be one similar to the workers’ compensation system in which the victim is relieved of the requirement of proving which party acted tortiously and caused the accident.

Conclusion Legal historians and tort scholars have failed to pay sufficient attention to the primary role played by technological change in the law governing compensation for personal injuries, yet waves of technological change account for the most significant changes in American tort law; notably the replacement of the strict liability standard with the negligence regime during the mid- nineteenth century.413 From this and other historical examples of technology-induced changes in tort law standards governing liability for personal injuries, in this Article I have derived a descriptive model for analyzing and predicting what changes in accident compensation law will result from the adoption of new technologies. Industrial Revolution in importance, one involving robots, artificial intelligence, and, most importantly, autonomous vehicles.414 During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, post- Industrial-Revolution machines replaced the power and force previously supplied by human beings and horses. Now machines are replacing the decision-making previously supplied by humans.415 Application of the model’s factors to autonomous vehicles suggests the adoption of either a no-fault system or a strict, collective liability standard within the common law that requires proof of neither fault nor individual causation as a requirement of liability. The choice between these two alternatives should be made on the basis of three factors: (1) the magnitude of the increase in net social utility resulting from reliance on autonomous vehicles as a principal mode of transportation, (2) the perceived need to subsidize the development of the autonomous vehicle transportation system by limiting liability costs, and (3) our trust in administrative regulation to assure adequate attention to safety in the absence of full awards of damages under the common law. Regardless of the choice, the next technology-inspired revolution in American tort law looms on the horizon.

Fagnant, Daniel J., and Kara Kockelman. "Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 77 (2015): 167-181.

Abstract

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) represent a potentially disruptive and beneficial change to the way in which we travel. This new technology has the potential to impact personal travel across a wide array of impacts including safety, congestion, and travel behavior. All told, major social AV impacts in the form of crash savings, travel time reduction, fuel efficiency and parking benefits are likely on the order of $2,000 per year per AV, or $3,000 eventually increasing to nearly $5,000 when comprehensive crash costs are accounted for. Yet barriers to implementation and mass-market penetration remain. Initial costs will likely be unaffordable and licensing and testing standards in the U.S. are being developed at the state level, rather than adopting a national framework, which may lead to inconsistencies across states. Liability regimes remain undefined, security concerns linger, and absent new privacy standards, a default lack of privacy for personal travel may become the norm. Finally, with the advent of this new technology, many impacts, interactions with other components of the transportation system, and implementation details remain uncertain. To address these concerns, research in these areas should be expanded, and the U.S. and other countries should create nationally recognized licensing structures for AVs, and determine appropriate standards for liability, security, and data privacy. CONCLUSIONS 8 Driverless cars may seem a distant possibility. In reality, autonomous technology is improving quickly, as some automated features are already on current models. This new technology should reduce crashes, ease congestion, improve fuel economy, reduce parking needs, bring mobility to those unable to drive, and eventually revolutionize travel. Based on current research, annual U.S. economic benefits could be around $25 billion with only 10% market penetration. When including broader benefits and high penetration rates, AVs may save the U.S. economy roughly $430 billion annually. While this does not include some associated costs and externalities, the potential for dramatic change to the nature of transportation is very possible. While potential benefits are substantial, significant implementation and mass-market penetration barriers remain. Initial AV technology costs will likely be unaffordable for most households. States are currently pursuing their own licensing and testing requirements, which may bring a patchwork of regulations and requirements without federal guidance. An AV liability framework is largely absent, creating uncertainty in the event of a crash. Security concerns should be examined from a regulatory standpoint to protect the traveling public, and privacy issues must be balanced against data uses. Car manufacturers have shown interest in AVs by investing millions of dollars to make self-driving cars. The government should begin focusing research into how AVs could impact transportation and land use patterns, and how to best alter our transportation

system to maximize their benefits while anticipating and mitigating negative impacts.

Gless, Silverman & Weigend: If Robots Cause Harm, Who Is to Blame? Self-Driving Cars and Criminal Liability, (2016) 19 New Criminal Law Review 412.

abstract Thefact that robots, especially self-driving cars, have become part ofour daily lives raises novel issues in criminal law. Robots can malfunction and cause serious harm. But as things stand today, they are not suitaMe recipients of criminal punishment, mainly because they cannot conceive ofthemselves as morally responsible agents and because they cannot understand the concept of retributive puni...