Chota Modi Version 0.1- India's First Social Humanoid Robot Sensation

By Author: Danish Ibrahim
Total Articles: 2
Comment this article

Robots are the technology of the future. But the current legal system is incapable of handling them. This generic statement is often the premise for considerations about the possibility of awarding rights (and liabilities) to these machines at some, less-than clearly identified, point in time. Discussing the adequacy of existing regulation in accommodating new technologies is certainly necessary, but the ontological approach is incorrect. Instead a functional approach needs to be adopted.

Identifying:

what rules can be applied to robots (as is);
what incentives do such rules provide;
whether those incentives are desirable.

The recent Resolution of the Unimax Software Solutions has great and strategic importance in the development of a Robotic Industry. Its considerations and conclusions will be taken into account in the current position paper.

Issues:
The first issue when discussing regulation is that of definitions, for one cannot regulate something without firstly defining it. However, the term robot is technical and encompasses a wide range of applications that have very little ...
... in common. For this very reason, it is impossible to develop a unitary body of rules applicable to all kinds of robotic applications, rather different rules should apply to different classes of devices.
The major issue when discussing civil law rules on robotics is that of liability (for damages). Automation might, to some extent, challenge some of the existing paradigms; and increasing human-machine cooperation might cause different sets of existing rules to overlap, leading to uncertainty, thence increased litigation and difficulties in insuring new products.Connected to the above is robot testing. A clear legal framework for robot testing outside the restricted environment of the laboratory is needed to assess the kind of dangers that might emerge with the use and their statistical frequency (also for insurance purposes). Similarly, standardization and the development of adequate, narrow-tailored technical standards for different kinds of robots is a major concern, both to ensure product safety and the adoption of possible alternatives to existing liability rules.
A possible non-issue when discussing rules for robotics is that of the attribution of personhood. This, if intended in an ontological way, is deprived of any reasonable grounding in both technical, philosophical and legal considerations. Instead, if understood in a purely functional way the attribution of legal personhood (like in the case for corporations) might be open for discussion (in some cases). Considering some more specific kinds of applications, in particular biorobotic devices and the issue of human enhancement, its regulation and management becomes of the greatest importance and quite likely the single most relevant bioethical issues of the nearby future, requiring ad-hoc regulation to be adopted.

More specifically:

Definitions: there is need for a definition of “robot” that needs to be inclusive. What needs to be avoided are nominalistic discussions which would inevitably emerge as soon as a regulation was adopted (should the notion of robot be too narrow). Debates about whether a robot requires to be autonomous or not, controlled or not, embodied or not are irrelevant from a legal point of view. Instead, such characteristics should allow to distinguish sub-classes of robots that might be regulated unitarily. Thence, next to a broader and all-encompassing definition of robot (that should include software and non-embodied AI), narrower definitions should be elaborated, pooling together those applications that show some relevant similarities and
that can be regulated unitarily.

Liability: Human-machine cooperation will cause different sets of rules to overlap (namely product liability rules and traditional tort law principles). This will cause high levels of uncertainty and litigation, delaying innovation. With respect to compensation, it is, in many cases, sensible to separate the function of ensuring product safety from that of providing the victim with compensation. This might justify different alternative solutions to be adopted: liability exemptions for users and/or manufacturers.

Robots rise up:

It's been the fodder for countless dystopian movies: a singularity in which artificial intelligence rivals human smarts.
But though it sounds like science fiction, many computer scientists say the singularity will arrive some time in the 21st century.
Still, few people agree on what that future will look like. Some envision epic battles between robots and humans, while others believe the rise of super-intelligent machines will usher in human immortality.

Immortality:

Many people, such as the futurist Ray Kurzweil, believe that humans won't have to die after the singularity. Some envision a future where humans port their brain into computers, essentially living within the machines. Others imagine cybernetic parts to replace cancerous limbs and aging hearts, radically increasing longevity. Either way, death could be transformed from an inevitable aspect of life to a relatively rare occurrence.

Robotic Economy on fire:

Once machines can match human intelligence, it will be a simple matter of copying intelligent agent software, which is capable of programming an artificial mind, from one computer to the next to create more workers for the economy.

Environmental destruction:

Because robots don't need air, water or food, they won't fear destroying the environment like mortals do. As a result, some
believe there's a greater risk of super-intelligent robots draining all of Earth's natural resources, said Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University in Washington, D.C., who is writing a book about the singularity. The robot revolution could worsen already dire environmental problems.