vvThe ethical dilemmas of robotics

(A movie, I, Robot discussed the law of Robotics proposed by Isaac Asimov)

If the idea of robot ethics sounds like something out of science fiction, think again. Scientists are
already beginning to think seriously about the new ethical problems posed by current developments in
robotics. As these robots become more intelligent, it will become harder to decide who is responsible if
they injure someone. Is the designer to blame, or the user, or the robot itself?
That's why Isaac Asimov created the three robotics law to protect us humanity if ever the problems
arise with us human between the robots:
 A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to
harm
 A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would
conflict with the First Law
 A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the
First or Second Law
These three laws might seem like a good way to keep robots from harming people. But to a roboticist
(One who conceptualizes, designs, builds, programs, and experiments with robots) they pose more
problems than they solve. In fact, programming a real robot to follow the three laws would itself be very
difficult.
For a start, the robot would need to be able to tell humans apart from similar-looking things such as
chimpanzees, statues and humanoid robots, but with the help of machine learning or also known as A.I
apply to the robots, the robot can identify the differences between the things. Therefore it will cause
awareness to us human if ever the robots made their way in to our society.
Through these scenarios, Asimov explores how a core organizing synthetic morality (The Three
Laws of Robotics) could play out as machines continue to become more nuanced and evolved.
Is Google Making Us Stupid? 2008. Nicholas Carr

He discussed ideas that I had never thought about before, and I believed everything he wrote.  He
made me realize that human beings should be sceptical of the internet because it affects the way we
process information. Others considered that we’re actually being freed by all of this; which would
presuppose that some of the behaviours of pre-internet knowledge work were not necessarily very
efficient.
Carr believes that the internet prevents us from deep, introspective thinking, thus limits a healthy
amount of intellectual stimulation.  I can relate to this because from being a student since high school,
I’m that type of student that sometimes too dependent on Google to find answers without bothering
analysing the problems affecting how I think and work, mostly in a negative sense. I have to believe
there’s a continuum effect.
From the evolution of technology, first world societies have become more and more dependent on
using the internet for information.  In fact, as Carr states in his essay, we even use the internet in
replacement of other mediums, such as the television, radio, telephone, books, and newspaper. 
Carr’s writing really struck me because I relate to so many of the points he makes throughout his
essay.  I remember having trouble concentrating of my homework.  This is about the time I started to
use the internet for purposes outside of school.  Carr’s essay made me wonder about whether or not I
would be more focussed on school work if I had not been using the internet for so many years.
Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us (2000) – Bill Joy, Chief Scientist and Corporate Executive Officer of
Sun Microsystems

Life is full of machines and maybe our future may not need humans to work because we are already
machine oriented.
In the year 2000, Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, wrote a provocative article
for Wired  magazine entitled “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” arguing that human beings face the
realistic possibility of extinction because of competition from intelligent robots, which are made possible
by technological advancements in artificial intelligence.
To view human beings merely in terms of economic value is not to view them as having intrinsic worth,
and if so, we may be overtaken by machines now sooner than we think. Lacking an understanding our
essence and identity, of what makes us human, we may be not to say that such an understanding is
easy, or even possible to achieve.
Joy’s article is a goldmine for those who, in a triumphant spirit, want to continue championing
technological progress as an unmitigated good: many of the worst-case scenarios about which he
worries have not come to pass. But is he really that far off? The thought that humans may become
economically redundant at some point may appear less and less of a fantasy if we continue along
the trajectory of unbridled technological progress outlined by Joy, and enabled by a combination
of the logic of capitalism and our human hopes and fears. The frightening possibility is that the
future economy is one that has no need for us, if 21st-century technologies can do everything
better, cheaper and faster than humans can. As Joy notes:
“…with the prospect of human-level computing power in about 30 years, a new idea suggests
itself: that I may be working to create tools which will enable the construction of the technology
that may replace our species. How do I feel about this? Very uncomfortable…  And if our own
extinction is a likely, or even possible, outcome of our technological development, shouldn’t we
proceed with great caution?”

There is good reason to believe that at many points in the world history, good sense and
human spirit have prevailed but even if extreme possibilities are unlikely to come to pass, we should
still proceed with caution and a sense of moderation. At any rate, it is not too early to start pondering
strategies, policies, and legislation, because the future is almost here.