Robo-

From Blindside

1 What is it
2 Impact & Maturity assessment
3 Information Assurance issues
4 Implications for UK Government
5 Timescale
6 Examples
7 Examples
8 Comments (attributed)
9 Organisations
10 Articles & research papers
11 Experts (academic, practitioner)

[edit] What is it

Robots are programmable machines with an illusion of intentionality which can move, manipulate things and respond to their environment. The word derives from the Czech robota, meaning forced work or compulsory service, or robotnik, meaning serf, and was first used by the Czech playwright Karel Çapek in 1918.

Wikipedia on robots:

A robot is a mechanical or virtual, artificial agent. A robot is usually an electro-mechanical system, which, by its appearance or movements, conveys a sense that it has intent or agency of its own....While there is still discussion about which machines qualify as robots, a typical robot must have several, but not all of the following properties: * Is not 'natural' / has been artificially created. * Can sense its environment. * Can manipulate things in its environment. * Has some degree of intelligence, or ability to make choices based on the environment, or automatic control / preprogrammed sequence. * Is programmable. * Can move with one or more axes of rotation or translation. * Can make dexterous coordinated movements. * Appears to have intent or agency

[edit] Impact & Maturity assessment

We feel the impact of robotics will be 3, the highest level. We feel maturity is best assessed as 2, despite their growing numbers, due to the increase we will see in both numbers and complexity in the short term.

Robots are mature in mass production and warehousing and widely used for tasks like bomb disposal, deep sea exporation and cleaning toxic waste. According to the International Federation of Robotics, there are 923,000 industrial robots in service in 2007.

Domestically they are progressing from routine tasks like vacuuming and lawnmowing to more complex tasks of house-sitting, nursing and childminding. The South Korean government predicts every South Korean household will have a robot by 2020. There are five manufacturers of robots for milking cows, and six manufacturers of robots for cleaning sewers.

The Pentagon is spending millions of dollars on research into autonomous fighting machines which might according to Georgia Tech "find, intercept and destroy a moving enemy tank on the battlefield". The June 9 issue of the Economist reports that the Pentagon, in an attempt to give these robots more autonomy (including the ability to decide when to use lethal force)is working with the Georgia Institute of Technology to develop a software based rules of engagement set of rules. Dr. Ronald Arkin of the Georgia Institute of Technology is currently surveying policymakers, members of the public, researchers and military personnel regarding this.

[edit] Information Assurance issues

As well as the usual set of information assurance issues that apply to programmable devices, robots raise questions of ethics and accountability. If a robot kills someone, who is liable? Does there come a stage where robots need rights (see eg Sir David King on the UK Sigma scan?

This need was articulated in 1942 by the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov with his three laws of robotics:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

The South Korean government, which is promoting the country's robotics industry, has drafted an ethics charter for users and makers of robots based on the Asimov principles.

However, the greatest IT risk, discussed below, is that robots are a) portable and can be stolen and b) will tend to have more and more sensitive information loaded into them.

[edit] Implications for UK Government

Robots will be extensively used for healthcare, criminal justice and military purposes within the next 5 years. This will have implications regarding staff counts, rules of engagement for robots transitioning from military to civilian usage, capital expenditure budgets (as opposed to budgeting for HR), and programmes for educating the public who will increasingly encounter robots performing services previously accomplished by human hands.

Budgeting for adoption of robots will need to include estimated savings on pension contributions and staffing levels to justify upfront capital expenditures. Outsourcing may prove to be an attractive option, preferably to contractors that understand government processes more than the original manufacturers.

UK government may take a long view on this--changes in robotic capabilities may be quick and continuous, and large scale purchases of early models may prove to be an embarrassment.

[edit] Timescale

Is the impact of this emerging technology felt - now (less than 18 months) - in 2-5 years? - in 5-25 years - longer-term than that even

Current Robots are quickly moving out of the factory and into the home. Robotic manufacturing has been a principal feature of assembly lines for 30 years, but now toys/pets are becoming consumer products thesmelves, rather than making them.

1 year Information security issues are still around the corner in the civilian world, but are now being addressed by the military, using UAVs and robotic gun mounts and installing software rules of engagement and visual recognition systems to drive the rules of engagement.

5 years Every other militarty technology advance has ended up in the hands of the police. Again, a robotic water cannon in and of itself is probably not somethng to worry about. But if loaded with a database of pictures of criminals, activists, troublemakers, it may constitute a threat to civil liberties. From the Blindside point of view, what would be almost as bad as a robotic vehicle with such a database being stolen.

5-25 years

As advances continue in robotics, micro electo mechanical systems, nanotechnology and software, robots will dramatically increase their capabilities, in business, the home and perhaps most especially in the public sector, in hospitals and chronic care facilities, etc. As their capabilities increase, they will need more information to do their tasks. Because of the portable nature of robots, that information will almost always be at risk, unless it is piped into their systems in real time. Whether this information is stored or transmitted, there will be risk.

[edit] Examples

More Robot Grunts Ready for Duty Wired article suggesting Talon robots are soon to be deployed in Iraq (Dec 2004)

[edit] Comments (attributed)

In Lethality and Autonomous Robots: An Ethical Stance Ronald Arkin and Lilia Moshkina discuss the ethics of military robot deployment.

In order to fully understand the consequences of the deployment of autonomous machines capable of taking human life under military doctrine and tactics...a systematic ethical evaluation needs to be conducted to guide users (e.g., warfighters), system designers, policy makers, and commanders regarding the intended future use of this technology. This study needs to be conducted prior to the deployment of these systems, not as an afterthought.

They are examining

(1) What is acceptable? Can we understand, define, and shape expectations regarding battlefield robotics? A survey is being conducted to establish opinion on the use of lethality by autonomous systems spanning the public, researchers,
policymakers, and military personnel to ascertain the current point-of-view maintained by various demographic groups on this subject.
(2) What can be done? Artificial Conscience and Reflection. We are designing a computational implementation of an ethical code within an existing autonomous robotic system, i.e., an “artificial conscience”, that will be able to govern an autonomous system’s behavior in a manner consistent with the rules of war.