\nThe articles below demonstrate why the need for ethics, morals, policies, & serious reflection about what kind of future we want has never been greater!<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
What Ethics Should Guide the Use of Robots in Policing?<\/strong> <\/a>— from nytimes.com<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 11 Police Robots Patrolling Around the World<\/strong><\/a> — from wired.com<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Police use of robot to kill Dallas shooting suspect is new, but not without precursors<\/strong><\/a> — from techcrunch.com<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n What skills will human workers need when robots take over? A new algorithm would let the machines decide<\/strong><\/a> — from qz.com<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The impact on jobs | Automation and anxiety | Will smarter machines cause mass unemployment?<\/strong><\/a> — from economist.com<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n VRTO Spearheads Code of Ethics on Human Augmentation<\/strong><\/a> — from vrfocus.com <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Google and Microsoft Want Every Company to Scrutinize You with AI<\/strong><\/a> — from technologyreview.com by Tom Simonite <\/p>\n <\/p>\n U.S. Public Wary of Biomedical Technologies to \u2018Enhance\u2019 Human Abilities<\/strong><\/a> — from pewinternet.org by Cary Funk, Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Podrebarac Sciupac <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Human Enhancement<\/strong> <\/a>— from pewinternet.org by David Masci <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Robolliance focuses on autonomous robotics for security and survelliance<\/strong><\/a> — from robohub.org by Kassie Perlongo<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Company Unveils Plans to Grow War Drones from Chemicals<\/strong><\/a> — from interestingengineering.com<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Army\u2019s Self-Driving Trucks Hit the Highway to Prepare for Battle<\/strong> <\/a>— from wired.com<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Russian robots will soon replace human soldiers<\/strong><\/a> — from interestingengineering.com<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Unmanned combat robots beginning to appear<\/strong><\/a> — from therobotreport.com<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Law-abiding robots? What should the legal status of robots be?<\/strong> <\/a>— from robohub.org by Anders Sandberg<\/p>\n Excerpt:<\/em><\/p>\n News media are reporting that the EU is considering turning robots into electronic persons<\/a> with rights and apparently industry spokespeople are concerned<\/a> that Brussels\u2019 overzealousness could hinder innovation.<\/p>\n The report <\/a>is far more sedate. It is a draft report, not a bill, with a mixed bag of recommendations to the\u00a0Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics<\/a> in the European Parliament. It will be years before anything is decided.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, it is interesting reading when considering how society should adapt to increasingly capable autonomous machines: what should the legal and moral status of robots be? How do we distribute responsibility?<\/span><\/p>\n A remarkable opening<\/strong> whereas, until such time, if ever, that robots become or are made self-aware, Asimov\u2019s Laws must be regarded as being directed at the designers, producers and operators of robots, since those laws cannot be converted into machine code;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It is remarkable because first it alludes to self-aware robots, presumably moral agents \u2013 a pretty extreme and currently distant possibility \u2013 then brings up Isaac Asimov\u2019s famous but fictional laws of robotics<\/a> and makes a simultaneously insightful and wrong-headed claim.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Robots are getting a sense of self-doubt<\/strong><\/a> — from popsci.com by Dave Gershgorn Excerpt:<\/em><\/p>\n That murmur is self-doubt, and its presence helps keep us alive. But robots don’t have this instinct\u2014just look at the DARPA Robotics Challenge<\/a>. But for robots and drones to exist in the real world, they need to realize their limits. We can’t have a robot flailing around in the darkness, or trying to bust through walls. In a new paper<\/a>, researchers at Carnegie Mellon are working on giving robots introspection<\/a>, or a sense of self-doubt. By predicting the likelihood of their own failure through artificial intelligence, robots could become a lot more thoughtful, and safer as well.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Scientists Create Successful Biohybrid Being Using 3-D Printing and Genetic Engineering<\/strong> <\/a>— from inc.com by Lisa Calhoun Excerpt:<\/em><\/p>\n If you met this lab-created\u00a0critter over your beach vacation, you’d swear you saw a baby ray. In fact, the tiny, flexible swimmer is the product of a\u00a0team of diverse\u00a0scientists.\u00a0They have built\u00a0the most successful artificial animal yet. This disruptive technology<\/a>\u00a0opens the door much wider for lifelike robots <\/a>and\u00a0artificial intelligence<\/a>.<\/p>\n From DSC:<\/span><\/em> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Pokemon Go’s digital popularity is also warping real life<\/strong><\/a> — from finance.yahoo.com by Ryan Nakashima and David Hamilton<\/p>\n Excerpt (emphasis DSC):<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Todd Richmond, a director at the Institute for Creative Technologies at the University of Southern California, says a big debate is brewing over who controls digital assets associated with real world property.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is the problem with technology adoption \u2014 we don\u2019t have time to slowly dip our toe in the water,\u201d he says. \u201cTenants have had no say, no input, and now they\u2019re part of it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n From DSC:<\/em><\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Right now, artificial intelligence is the only thing that matters: Look around you<\/a><\/strong> — from forbes.com by Enrique Dans<\/p>\n Excerpts:<\/em><\/p>\n If there\u2019s one thing the world\u2019s most valuable companies agree on, it\u2019s that their future success hinges on artificial intelligence. <\/p>\n The links I have included in this column have been carefully chosen as recommended reading to support my firm conviction that machine learning and artificial intelligence are the keys to just about every aspect of life in the very near future: every sector, every business.<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 10 jobs that A.I. and chatbots are poised to eventually replace<\/strong> <\/a>— from venturebeat.com by Felicia Schneiderhan<\/p>\n Excerpt:<\/em><\/p>\n If you\u2019re a web designer, you\u2019ve been warned.<\/p>\n Now there is an A.I. that can do your job.\u00a0Customers can direct exactly how their\u00a0new website should look. Fancy something more colorful? You got it. Less quirky and more professional? Done. This A.I. is still in a limited beta but it is<\/em> coming. It\u2019s called The Grid<\/a> and it came out of nowhere.\u00a0It makes you feel like you are interacting with a human counterpart. And it works<\/em>.<\/p>\n Artificial intelligence has arrived. Time to sharpen up those resumes.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Augmented Humans: Next Great Frontier, or Battleground?<\/strong><\/a> — from nextgov.com by John Breeden<\/p>\n Excerpt:<\/em><\/p>\n It seems like, in general, technology always races ahead of the moral implications of using it. This seems to be true of everything from atomic power to sequencing genomes. Scientists often create something because they can, because there is a perceived need for it, or even by accident as a result of research. Only then does the public catch up and start to form an opinion on the issue. Which brings us to the science of augmenting humans with technology, a process that has so far escaped the public scrutiny and opposition found with other radical sciences. Scientists are not taking any chances, with several yearly conferences already in place as a forum for scientists, futurists and others to discuss the process of human augmentation and the moral implications of the new science.<\/p>\n That said, it seems like those who would normally oppose something like this have remained largely silent.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Google Created Its Own Laws of Robotics<\/strong><\/a> — from fastcodesign.com by John Brownlee <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Google identifies five problems with artificial intelligence safety<\/strong><\/a> — from which-50.com<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n![\"Ethics-Robots-NYTimes-July2016\"](\"http:\/\/danielschristian.com\/learning-ecosystems\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Ethics-Robots-NYTimes-July2016.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/cdn.static-economist.com\/sites\/default\/files\/imagecache\/original-size\/images\/print-edition\/20160625_SRC661.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\nA code of ethics is being developed for both VR and AR industries.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nThe tech giants are eager to rent out their AI breakthroughs to other companies.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nAmericans are more worried than enthusiastic about using gene editing, brain chip implants and synthetic blood to change human capabilities<\/em><\/p>\n
\nThe Scientific and Ethical Dimensions of Striving for Perfection<\/em><\/p>\n
\nThe report begins its general principles with an eyebrow-raising paragraph:<\/p>\n\n
\nIntrospection is the key to growth<\/em><\/p>\n
\nScientists genetically engineered and 3-D-printed a biohybrid being, opening the door further for lifelike robots and artificial intelligence<\/em><\/p>\n
\nI don’t think I’d use the term disruptive<\/em> here — though that may turn out to be the case.\u00a0 The word disruptive<\/em> doesn’t come close to carrying\/relaying the weight and seriousness of this kind of activity; nor does it point out where this kind of thing could lead to.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nI greatly appreciate what Pok\u00e9mon Go has been able to achieve and although I haven’t played it, I think it’s great (great for AR, great for peoples’ health, great for the future of play, etc.)!\u00a0\u00a0 So there are many positives to it. But the highlighted portion above is not<\/em> something we want to have to say occurred with artificial intelligence, cognitive computing, some types of genetic engineering, corporations tracking\/using your personal medical information or data, the development of biased algorithms, etc.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
\n…
\nIn short, CEO Sundar Pichai wants to put artificial intelligence everywhere<\/a>, and Google is marshaling its army of programmers into the task of remaking itself as a machine learning company<\/a>\u00a0from top to bottom.
\n…
\nMicrosoft won\u2019t be left behind this time. In a great interview<\/a> a few days ago, its CEO, Satya Nadella<\/a> says he intends to overtake Google in the machine learning race, arguing that the company\u2019s future depends on it, and outlining a vision in which human and machine intelligence work together to solve humanity\u2019s problems<\/a>. In other words, real value is created when robots work for people, not when they replace them<\/a>.
\n…
\nAnd Facebook? The vision<\/a> of its founder, Mark Zuckerberg<\/a>, of the company\u2019s future, is one in which artificial intelligence is all around us, carrying out or helping to carry out just about any task you can think of…<\/a><\/p>\n
\n…<\/p>\n
\nBuilding robots that don’t harm humans is an incredibly complex challenge. Here are the rules guiding design at Google.<\/em><\/p>\n
![\"rollsroyce-july2016\"](\"http:\/\/danielschristian.com\/learning-ecosystems\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/rollsroyce-july2016.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n