You searched for: "what is a robot"
Research Papers
Videos
We Robot 2022 Day 2 Afternoon Session
The Tech Policy Lab hosted We Robot 2022 at the University of Washington School of Law. This video is from the afternoon session of the second day (September 16th).
We Robot 2022 Day 2 Morning Session
The Tech Policy Lab hosted We Robot 2022 at the University of Washington School of Law. This video is from the morning session of the second day (September 16th).
We Robot 2022 Day 1 Afternoon Session
The Tech Policy Lab hosted We Robot 2022 at the University of Washington School of Law. This is the afternoon session of the first day (September 15, 2022).
What is a Robot?
In our research, we found 3 broad approaches that scholars use to define robots. These are (1) as artificial humans, (2) programmable machines, and (3) machines that can sense, think, and act on the world. None of these approaches offers a definition that works for all of the ways we already use the word. But they're a start.
WeRobot 2015 Keynote: An Evening with Tony Dyson
WeRobot 2015 Panel 2: “Robot Passports”
Author: Anupam Chander; Discussant: Ann Bartow; Paper: http://bit.ly/1QBX2fp. Can international trade law, which after all seeks to liberalize trade in both goods and services, help stave off attempts to erect border barriers to this new type of trade? The smart objects of the 21st century consist of both goods and information services, and thus are subject to multiple means of government protectionism, but also trade liberalization. This paper is the first effort to locate and analyze the Internet of Things and modern robotics within the international trade framework.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 8: “Operator Signatures for Teleoperated Robots”
Authors: Tamara Bonaci, Aaron Alva, Jeffrey Herron, Ryan Calo, Howard Chizeck; Discussant: Margot Kaminski; Paper: http://bit.ly/1GBw1Wz. This paper discusses legal liability and evidentiary issues that operator signatures could occasion or help to resolve. We first provide a background of teleoperated robotic systems, and introduce the concept of operator signatures. We then discuss some cyber-security risks that may arise during teleoperated procedures, and describe the three main task operator signatures seek to address—identification, authentication, and real-time monitoring. Third, we discuss legal issues that arise for each of these tasks. We discuss what legal problems operator signatures help mitigate. We then focus on liability concerns that may arise when operator signatures are used as a part of a real-time monitoring and alert tool. We consider the various scenarios where actions are conducted on the basis of an operator signature alert. Finally, we provide preliminary guidance on how to balance the need to mitigate cyber-security risks with the desire to enable adoption of teleoperation.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 7: “The Presentation of the Machine in Everyday Life”
Authors: Karen Levy & Tim Hwang; Discussant: Evan Selinger; Paper: http://bit.ly/1bMxso7. As policy concerns around intelligent and autonomous systems come to focus increasingly on transparency and usability, the time is ripe for an inquiry into the theater of autonomous systems. When do (and when should) law and policy explicitly regulate the optics of autonomous systems (for instance, requiring electric vehicle engines to “rev” audibly for safety reasons) as opposed to their actual capabilities? What are the benefits and dangers of doing so? What economic and social pressures compel a focus on system theater, and what are the ethical and policy implications of such a focus?
WeRobot 2015 Panel 1: “Who’s Johnny? (Anthropomorphizing Robots)”
Author: Kate Darling; Discussant: Ken Goldberg; Paper: http://bit.ly/1bxvbfR. As we increasingly create spaces where robotic technology interacts with humans, our tendency to project lifelike qualities onto robots raises questions around use and policy. Based on a human-robot-interaction experiment conducted in our lab, this paper explores the effects of anthropomorphic framing in the introduction of robotic technology. It discusses concerns about anthropomorphism in certain contexts, but argues that there are also cases where encouraging anthropomorphism is desirable. Because people respond to framing, framing could serve as a tool to separate these cases.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 6: “Unfair and Deceptive Robots”
Author: Woodrow Hartzog; Discussant: Ryan Calo; Paper: http://bit.ly/1KoSy7E. What should consumer protection rules for robots look like? The FTC’s grant of authority and existing jurisprudence make it the preferable regulatory agency for protecting consumers who buy and interact with robots. The FTC has proven to be a capable regulator of communications, organizational procedures, and design, which are the three crucial concepts for safe consumer robots. Additionally, the structure and history of the FTC shows that the agency is capable of fostering new technologies as it did with the Internet. The agency defers to industry standards, avoids dramatic regulatory lurches, and cooperates with other agencies. Consumer robotics is an expansive field with great potential. A light but steady response by the FTC will allow the consumer robotics industry to thrive while preserving consumer trust and keeping consumers safe from harm.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 9: “Robot Economics”
WeRobot 2015 Panel 10: “Personal Responsibility and Neuroprosthetics”
Authors: Patrick Moore, Timothy Brown, Jeffrey Herron, Margaret Thompson, Tamara Bonaci, Sara Goering, Howard Chizeck; Discussant: Meg Leta Jones; Paper: http://bit.ly/1J4Mtfp. This paper investigates whether giving users volitional control over therapeutic brain implants is ethically and legally permissible. We believe that it is not only permissible—it is in fact advantageous when compared to the alternative of making such systems’ operation entirely automatic. From an ethical perspective, volitional control maintains the integrity of the self by allowing the user to view the technology as restoring, preserving, or enhancing one’s abilities without the fear of losing control over one’s own humanity. This preservation of self- integrity carries into the legal realm, where giving users control of the system keeps responsibility for the consequences of its use in human hands.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 3: “Robotics Governance”
Panelists: Peter Asaro, Jason Millar, Kristen Thomasen, & David Post. Asaro, “Regulating Robots: A Multi-Scale Approach to Developing Robot Policy and Technology” http://bit.ly/1H1fZE8; Millar, “Sketching an Ethics Evaluation Tool for Robot Design and Governance” http://bit.ly/1Fsqro4; Thomasen, “Driving Lessons: Learning from the History of Automobile Regulation to Legislate Better Drones” http://bit.ly/1DQQrnx.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 5: “Law and Ethics of Telepresence Robots”
Authors: J. Nathan Matias, Chelsea Barabas, Chris Bavitz, Cecillia Xie, & Jack Xu; Discussant: Laurel Riek; Paper: http://bit.ly/1KoSy7n. The deployment of telepresence robots creates enormous possibilities for enhanced long-distance interactions, educational opportunities, and bridging of social and cultural gaps. The use of telepresence robots raises some legal and ethical issues, however. This proposal outlines the development of a law and ethics toolkit directed to those who operate and allow others to operate telepresence robots, describing some of the potential legal ethical issues that arise from their use and offering proposed responses and means of addressing and allocating risk.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 4: “Regulating Healthcare Robots”
Authors: Drew Simshaw, Nicolas Terry, Kris Hauser, M.L. Cumming; Discussant: Cindy Jacobs; Paper: http://bit.ly/1Csn4s0. There are basic, pressing issues that need to be addressed in the nearer future in order to ensure that robots are able to maintain sustainable innovation with the confidence of providers, patients, consumers, and investors. We will only be able to maximize the potential of robots in healthcare through responsible design, deployment, and use, which must include taking into consideration potential issues that could, if overlooked, manifest themselves in ways that harm patients and consumers, diminish the trust of key stakeholders of robots in healthcare, and stifle long-term innovation by resulting in overly restrictive reactionary regulation. In this paper, we focus on the issues of patient and user safety, security, and privacy, and specifically the effect of medical device regulation and data protection laws on robots in healthcare.
Responsible Innovation in the Age of Robots and Smart Machines | Jeroen van den Hoven
Many of the things we do to each other in the 21st century –both good and bad – we do by means of smart technology. Drones, robots, cars, and computers are a case in point. Military drones can help protect vulnerable, displaced civilians; at the same time, drones that do so without clear accountability give rise to serious moral questions when unintended deaths and harms occur. More generally, the social benefits of our smart machines are manifold; the potential drawbacks and moral quandaries extremely challenging. In this talk, I take up the question of responsible innovation drawing on the European Union experience and reconsidering the relations between ethics and design. I shall introduce ‘Value Sensitive Design’, one the most promising approaches, and provide illustrations from robotics, AI and drone technology to show how moral values can be used as requirements in technical design. By doing so we may overcome problems of moral overload and conflicting values by design. Jeroen van den Hoven is full professor of Ethics and Technology at Delft University of Technology, he is editor in chief of Ethics and Information Technology. He was the first scientific director of 3TU.Ethics (2007-2013). He won the World Technology Award for Ethics in 2009 and the IFIP prize for ICT and Society also in 2009 for his work in Ethics and ICT.