
This Robot Intentionally Hurts People – And Makes Them Bleed - qwerty245245
http://www.fastcompany.com/3059484/mind-and-machine/this-robot-intentionally-hurts-people-and-makes-them-bleed
======
qwerty245245
From [http://areben.com/project/the-first-law/](http://areben.com/project/the-
first-law/) : The first robot to autonomously and intentionally break Asimov’s
first law, which states: A robot may not injure a human being or, through
inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. The robot decides for each
person it detects if it should injure them not in a way the creator can not
predict. While there currently are “killer” drones and sentry guns, there is
either always some person in the loop to make decisions or the system is a
glorified tripwire. The way this robot differs in what exists is the decision
making process it makes. A land mine for instance is made to always go off
when stepped on, so no decision. A drone has a person in the loop, so no
machine process. A radar operated gun again is basically the same as a land
mine. Sticking your hand into a running blender is your decision, with a
certain outcome. The fact that sometimes the robot decides not to hurt a
person (in a way that is not predictable) is actually what brings about the
important questions and sets it apart. The past systems also are made to kill
when tripped or when a trigger is pulled, hurting and injuring for no purpose
is usually seen as a moral wrong. Obviously, a needle is a minimum amount of
injury, however – now that this class of robot exists, it will have to be
confronted.

~~~
qbrass
You have to stick your finger into the machine in order for it to work, which
makes it a triggered device. Russian roulette meets the same criteria for
"this class of robot" as this machine does.

The machine needs to be able to initiate the interaction between itself and
it's potential victim to take the choice out of the human's hands. A roomba
with a hat pin taped to it would be a better example than this machine.

