Moral Machines and the Threat of Ethical Nihilism

A draft of a paper that reacts to Moral Machines is available online. See Moral Machines and the Threat of Ethical Nihilism.

Here's a quick statement of the paper's direction:

"In 2000, Allen, Varner and Zinser addressed the possibility of a Moral Turing Test (MTT) to judge the success of an automated moral agent (AMA), a theme that is repeated in Wallach and Allen (2009). While the authors are careful to note that a language-only test based on moral justifications, or reasons, would be inadequate, they consider a test based on moral behavior. “One way to shift the focus from reasons to actions,” they write, “might be to restrict the information available to the human judge in some way. Suppose the human judge in the MTT is provided with descriptions of actual, morally significant actions of a human and an AMA, purged of all references that would identify the agents. If the judge correctly identifies the machine at a level above chance, then the machine has failed the test” (206). While they are careful to note that indistinguishability between human and automated agents might set the bar for passing the test too low, such a test by its very nature decides the morality of an agent on the basis of appearances. Since there seems to be little else we could use to determine the success of an AMA, we may rightfully ask whether, analogous to the term "thinking" in other contexts, the term "moral" is headed for redescription here. Indeed, Wallach and Allen’s survey of the problem space of machine ethics forces the question of whether in fifty years (or less) one will be able to speak of a machine as being moral without expecting to be contradicted. Supposing the answer were yes, why might this invite concern? What is at stake? How might such a redescription of the term "moral" come about?"

Robot Ethics and Human Ethics

A special issue of Ethics and Information Technology on "Robot Ethics and Human Ethics" has just been released. See http://www.springerlink.com/content/1388-1957/12/3/ for details.

"Rise of the Drones" -- Transcript of House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

A transcript of testimony collected March 23, 2010, before the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is available from the Homeland Security Digital Library. It is titled: "Rise of the Drones: Unmanned Systems and the Future of War".

A full list of witness is listed below. Among the statements made are these:

"the United States government urgently needs publicly to declare the legal rationale behind its use of drones, and defend that legal rationale in the international community" — Kenneth Anderson, Washington College of Law, American University

"AUVSI’s over 6,000 members from industry, government organizations, and academia are committed to fostering and promoting unmanned systems and related technologies." — Michael S. Fagan Chair, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Advocacy Committee Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI)

"The Department of Commerce believes the issue of missile proliferation has never been as important to our national security interests as it is now. A comprehensive export control system is already in place to protect our national security. As noted above, the Department of Commerce is committed to enhancements to that system as needed to ensure it continues to protect our national security." — Kevin Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security

"Our industry growth is adversely affected by International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) for export of certain UAS technologies, and by a lengthy license approval process by Political Military Defense Trade Controls (PM-DTC). AUVSI is an advocate for simplified export-control regulations and expedited license approvals for unmanned systems technologies." — Michael Fagan, AUVSI Chair

"I would advise an incremental approach similar to that used with remote-controlled systems: intelligence missions first, strike missions later. Given the complexity involved, I would also restrict initial strike missions to non-lethal weapons and combatant-only areas. One possible exception to this non-lethal recommendation would involve autonomous systems targeting submarines, where one only would have to identify friendly combatants, enemy combatants, and perhaps whales." — Edward Barrett, Director of Research, Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership U.S. Naval Academy

Witness list:

• John F. Tierney, Chairman
• Peter W. Singer, Director, 21st Century Defense Initiative The Brookings Institution
• Edward Barrett, Director of Research, Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership U.S. Naval Academy
• Kenneth Anderson, Professor, Washington College of Law American University
• John Jackson, Professor of Unmanned Systems U.S. Naval War College
• Michael Fagan, Chair, Unmanned Aerial Systems Advocacy Committee Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
• Michael J. Sullivan, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management U.S. Government Accountability Office
• Dyke Weatherington, Deputy, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Planning Taskforce Office of the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, U.S. Department of Defense
Kevin Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security

NYTIMES Profiles The Lifeboat Foundation

The Lifeboat Foundation is a nonprofit that seeks to protect people from some seriously catastrophic technology-related events. It funds research that would prevent a situation where technology has run amok, sort of like a pre-Fringe Unit.

The organization has a ton of areas that it’s looking into, ranging from artificial intelligence to asteroids. A particular interest for the group revolves around building shields and lots of them.

For example, there’s talk of a Neuroethics Shield – “to prevent abuse in the areas of neuropharmaceuticals, neurodevices, and neurodiagnostics. Worst cases include enslaving the world’s population or causing everyone to commit suicide.”

And then there’s a Personality Preserver that would help people keep their personalities intact and a Nano Shield to protect against overly aggressive nano creatures.

Read the full article by Ashless Vance titled, The Lifeboat Foundation: Battling Asteroids, Nanobots and A.I.

REX, Wheelchair Bound Are Up And About With Robot Exoskeleton

Thought-Controlled Prosthetic Limbs

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has awarded a contract for up to $34.5 million to The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Md., to manage the development and testing of the Modular Prosthetic Limb (MPL) system on human subjects, using a brain-controlled interface.

The MPL offers 22 degrees of motion, including independent movement of each finger, in a package that weighs about nine pounds (the weight of a natural limb). Providing nearly as much dexterity as a natural limb, the MPL is capable of unprecedented mechanical agility and is designed to respond to a user’s thoughts.

Read the full article titled, Thought-Controlled Prosthetic Limb System to be Tested on Humans.

Secrets, Surveillance, and UAVs

Two interesting reports about UAVs (unmanned aircraft) have be brought to our attention. One, written by Thomas P. Ehrhard, is titled, Air Force UAVs:The Secret History. Ehrhard is a Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff of the US Air Force. In an introduction, Rebecca Grant, Director of the Mitchell Institute for who the report was prepared, writes:

All along, there have been some tantalizing public hints about the extent of America's unmanned reconnaissance and surveillance work. What is striking, though, is how thoroughly the Air Force's secret role in UAV development remained "in the black world," unseen by any except those closest to the projects. The veil allowed speedy development of systems but gave the Air Force an undeserved reputation of indifference.

Of perhaps even more interest to readers of this blog, is a second report titled, Homeland Security: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance by Chad Haddal and Jeremiah Gertler. This discusses progress in using UAV's for surveillance along the U.S.'s international borders.

The technical capabilities of the UAVs have been tested in a military context, but safety and technical issues need to be addressed if the program is to be expanded domestically. Chief among these issues is the FAA’s concerns about the NAS and whether UAVs can be safely incorporated into the nation’s crowded skies. It has been noted that UAVs suffer accident rates multiple times higher than manned aircraft. However, in an effort to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, DOD fielded UAVs such as Predator and Global Hawk before their development programs were complete. Thus, the UAV accident rate might be lower if these systems had been allowed to mature under the full development program.