Artificial intelligence researchers
often idealize Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics as the signpost for
robot-human interaction. But some robotics experts say that the concept could
use a practical makeover to recognize the current limitations of robots.
Self-aware
robots that inhabit Asimov's stories and others such as "2001: A Space
Odyssey" and "Battlestar Galactica" remain in the distant future. Today's
robots still lack any sort of real autonomy to make their own decisions or
adapt intelligently to new environments.
But danger can arise when humans
push robots beyond their current limits of decision-making, experts warn. That
can lead to mistakes and even tragedies involving robots on factory floors and
in military operations, when humans forget that all legal and ethical
responsibility still rests on the shoulders of homo
sapiens.
"The fascination with robots
has led some people to try retreating from responsibility for difficult
decisions, with potentially bad consequences," said David Woods, a systems
engineer at Ohio State University.
Woods and a fellow researcher
proposed revising the Three Laws to emphasize human responsibility over robots.
They also suggested that Earth-bound robot handlers could take a hint from NASA
when it comes to robot-human
interaction.
Updating Asimov
Asimov's three laws of robotics are
set in a future when robots can think and act for themselves. The first law
prohibits robots from injuring humans or allowing humans to come to harm due to
inaction, while the second law requires robots to obey human orders except
those which conflict with the first law. A third law requires robots to protect
their own existence, except when doing so conflicts with the first two laws.
South Korea has used those
"laws" as a guide for its Robot Ethics Charter, but Woods and his
colleagues thought they lacked some vital points.
Woods worked with Robin Murphy, a
rescue robotics expert at Texas A&M University, to create three laws that
recognize humans as the intelligent, responsible adults in the robot-human
relationship. Their first law says that humans may not deploy robots without a
work system that meets the highest legal and professional standards of safety
and ethics. A second revised law requires robots to respond to humans as
appropriate for their roles, and assumes that robots are designed to respond to
certain orders from a limited number of humans.
The third revised law proposes that
robots have enough autonomy to protect their own existence, as long as such
protection does not conflict with the first two laws and allows for smooth
transfer of control between human and robot. That means a Mars rover should
automatically know not to drive off a cliff, unless human operators
specifically tell it to do so.
Woods and Murphy see such revisions
as necessary when robotics manufacturers do not recognize the human
responsibility for robots. Murphy said that such attitudes come from a computer
software culture, where liability carries less consequence than creating a
machine which ends up injuring humans or damaging property.
"What happens is that we're
seeing roboticists who have never done any
manufacturing or work in the physical world, and don't realize that they're
responsible," Murphy told SPACE.com. "At the end of the day,
if you make something it's your problem."
She contrasted that attitude with
NASA's "culture of safety" and methodical approach that carefully
tests robotic
probes and rovers, recognizes the limits of robots, and tries to ensure
that human operators can quickly jump into the driver's seat when necessary.
NASA's way
Both Woods and Murphy said they felt
very comfortable with NASA's approach to robot-human interactions, whether it
involves the robotic
arms on the International Space Station or the Cassini probe making its
ongoing tour of the Saturn system.
"They understand how valued a
resource these robots are," Woods explained. "They know there will be
surprises in space exploration."
Murphy pointed out that NASA's
approach to robots comes from the AI tradition where people don't make
assumptions about having perfect control over everything. Instead, the space
agency has used AI systems that can perform well within normal operating
patterns, and can still lean on human assistance for more uncertain situations.
This approach has worked well for
NASA in many cases. For instance, scientists have done skillful troubleshooting
with the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, when the robots encounter
unpredictable issues with the Martian terrain and climate.
By contrast, some researchers
without an AI background assume that they can program robots that have a
complete model or view of the world, and can behave accordingly for any given
situation. This coincides with the temptation to assume that giving robots more
autonomy means that they can handle most or all situations on their own.
Murphy cautioned that such a
"closed world" approach only works with certain situations that
present limited options for an AI. No matter how much programming goes into
robots, the real open world represents a trap-filled pit of unexpected
scenarios.
Transfer of control
NASA would undoubtedly still like to
see robots that can take on more responsibility, especially during missions
when probes travel beyond the moon or Mars. Researchers have already begun
developing next-generation robots that could someday make more of the basic
decisions for exploring worlds such as Europa or
Titan.
But for now, NASA has recognized
that robots still
need human supervision — a concept that some robot manufacturers and
operators on Earth have more trouble grasping. Unexpected situations such as
robot malfunction or environmental surprises can quickly require humans to
regain control of the robot, lest it fail to respond in the right way.
"Right now, what we see over
and over again is transfer of control being an issue," Murphy noted. She
observed how human operators can quickly run into trouble when maneuvering
robots and drones around Texas A&M's
"Disaster City," a training simulation area for rescuers. Part of the
problem also arises when people do not know the capabilities of their robots.
NASA has some luxury in having a
team of scientists watch its robotic explorers, rather than single human
operators. But mission controllers also maintain high awareness of the limits
of their robotic explorers, and understand how to smoothly take over control.
"They understand that when they
have a safe or low-risk envelope, they can delegate more autonomy to the
robot," Woods said. "When unusual things happen, they restrict the
envelope of autonomy."
Woods compared the situation to
parents setting up a safe perimeter within which kids can wander and explore.
That analogy may continue to serve both NASA and other would-be robot handlers.
"People are making this leap of
faith that robot autonomy will grow and solve our problems," Woods added.
"But there's not a lot of evidence that autonomy by itself will make these
hard, high-risk decisions go away."
advertisement
