It’s almost 2010. 2010! The future is here!
So where, pray tell, are my freaking robots? When I was a kid, I was promised robots that would clean my house and prepare my meals and submit to my sexual perversions. Yet here we are, well into the 21st century, and there is not a robot slave to be found. What a ripoff. I’m so angry I feel like going back in time and killing John Connor.
I want my robot helpers, now. But the WSJ Law Blog and the San Francisco Chronicle tell me that I am nowhere near ready for the legal consequences of robots with access to home appliances and power tools. From the Law Blog:
A SF Chronicle story out Monday lays out the issue:
Robots have been an increasingly familiar sight in recent years, disarming explosives in Iraq, delivering mail in industrial complexes or bringing drugs to nurses in hospitals. . . .
As robots leave the factories and move into homes and businesses, there is going to be more and more interaction between regular people and increasingly more competent — and mobile — machines, said M. Ryan Calo, a residential fellow at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. And more contact always means more problems, and the U.S. legal system better be prepared, he said.
“These are devices that don’t have a predetermined usage; they’re not toasters,” he said.
“There’s a growing concern now about robot ethics, but what’s missing from those discussions is pragmatic lawyers thinking about what’s going to happen in the future.”
I’m sure that Isaac Asimov has already thought through this problem, but let’s look at what some lawyers have to say.
A terrifying hypothetical comes out of Stanford:
The easy answer would seem to be that, well, whoever made the malfunctioning robot should be responsible for any damage stemming from a robot malfunction. But it’s apparently not that simple. Paul Saffo, a so-called “futurist” who’s a visiting scholar at Stanford, throws out the following hypothetical:
What about a scenario in which a pair of teenagers hacks into, say, a cleaning robot, and reprograms it to destroy a house? Might liability extend to the manufacturer who built the robot or the developer who designed it or the software engineer who programmed it?
That would be horrible, especially if you replace the “cleaning robot” with the robot sex slave that will (obviously) hit the market long before any robot intended for purely family use. Who will be at fault when your robot treats you like a Northwestern Law School exam?
Perhaps section 230 will do for the robot industry what it has already done for bloggers?
Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act gives “interactive computer services” immunity from liability for information put on their sites, which means Facebook or other Web site hosts can’t be sued for what others post on their site.
Robot inventors and manufacturers need to get off their asses and start making my life easier. The futurists and the lawyers aren’t dropping the ball. It’s the people making my phone a portable tracking device who need to keep their eyes on the robot prizes.
When the Robots Attack, How Will We Hold Them Liable? [WSJ Law Blog]
first time to say first
sideboob.
I, for one, welcome our new robotic sexual overlords. Human-robot marriage will be the great social controversy of the late 21st century.
Elie=American hating hypocrite.
CHECK YOU ROBOTS
#2 for the win
This is TTTypical ATL, WSJ Law blog already covered this.
3-
HAIL ANTS
-QR
“What a ripoff. I’m so angry I feel like going back in time and killing John Connor.”
you do sort of resemble arnold.
What happened to the comments for the recent Asia Chronicles post? That’s my highlight of the day…
You may panic when technology produces a robot with true “artificial intelligence.” Until that time (possibly never), machines will not be able to produce independent, autonomous thought. That is to say, we are at the mercy of the programmers, not the machines. I like your hypothetical, but I find it unlikely that the manufacturers could be held liable for the machinations (pardon the pun) of a hacker.
A vibrator is a kind of robot. I wonder if the future will include homo robots for the queerly inclined.
11, I think dick size is all that matters for the girls. I think the cunt qualities might be a little more difficult to roboticize. What will this all mean for black on white fucking?
The only invention I lament that has not been created is the time machine. I wish I could wake up every day knowing Ronald Reagan was still the president while brokering mergers, acquisitions, IPOs, etc, during the best decade to have ever been an attorney. As I grow older and closer to my demise, I realize somewhere we went wrong to wind up living in a country run by Commissar Obama. I miss the 1980s.
i agree here. also, where r our flying cars? i thought we would be flying to work by now. the only “breakthrough” has been that stupid segway.
It wasn’t all that long ago when there were dozens of news stories about single women in NYC using their pet dogs for sex at home. I wonder what became of all that.
Mystal, is your shower jumbo sized so as to accommodate your heaving mounds of turgid WALRUS blubber?
Many lawyers have trouble making conversation, this leads to awkward silences, lost opportunities, and lost confidence. There are three main elements to great conversation that all revolve around taking an interest in other people. They are 1) Listening-listen to what the other person is saying and look for seeds (seeds-=things they may want to elaborate on) and ask questions about those seeds. 2)Asking/Answering Questions- If they ask a question, give an elaborate answer (more than one word) so they can ask you more questions OR if you are shy repeat the question back to them OR ask a question about one of the seeds they mentioned earlier. 3) Empathize – match experiences with a person, this really helps facilitate conversation.. If they tell you about a situation you respond with a story about a similar situation. If you practice the aforementioned skills every day with every conversation you have you will be able to converse easily with anyone, anywhere.
Wait, SF still has attorneys? I thought all their firms went under.
- unemployed attorney in Boston who somehow feels lucky that he lives in a city where no firms have gone under since ‘01.
That’s why I have Old Glory robot insurance.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/2340/saturday-night-live-old-glory
- Jack McCoy
Robot to incredibly attractrive woman: “I think Tiger Woods said it best, ‘I’ll wear you out. When was the last time you were [deleted] by a [robot]?’”
Has anyone else here been randomly sharted on by a chick from Boston?
Issac Asimov did think of it – the 3 laws of robotics. Look it up.
I’m all boned up because of this picture. Thanks ATL.
“Who will be at fault when your robot treats you like a Northwestern Law School exam?”
Good line, Elie.
What, pray tell, is freaking better than sideboob?
1. Can we get rid of SociallySkilled?
2. Do a story about how firms aren’t having holiday parties.
18 = worst schtick on ATL other than Nigel and DSH
“What about a scenario in which a pair of teenagers hacks into, say, [your home computer], and reprograms [reprograms it with a virus that destroys your files]? Might liability extend to the manufacturer who built the [computer] or the developer who designed it or the software engineer who programmed it?”
My 2009 Lexus can parallel park itself at the touch of a button. Who is liable if it causes an accident after I engage the self-parallel park function? Can my insurance reject the claim and say that my car is not an insured driver under my policy? Real issue. Any thoughts are welcome. Tyia.
Apologize for the Pearl Harbor post.
Elie wants a slave. That is rich.
Thanks for the review 29. It’s comments like yours that inspire me and David to continue trying to make eardrums bleed on ATL.
Nigel
The licensing possibilities for robot look-a-likes is endless. Can you imagine how much a Marilyn Monroe or Halle Berry robot would sell?
I thought PE was gone for good.
PE, did you have a Flock of Seagulls haircut during the 80s??
This is clearly a PE imposter. I was present at PE’s funeral.
This blog just keeps getting worse.
This post is hi-larious. Didn’t know you were a sci-fi geek, Elie. Nice.
That hypothetical is not that difficult to figure out.
Who is to blame when a hacker gets into your computer and steals confidential files and credit card information? The manufacturer? Bill Gates? Neither.
There’s no real difference between someone messing with your computer to steal shit and someone messing with your robot to wreck your house. Companies aren’t stupid. They will figure out a way to contract out of liabilities like that.
36, 37, 38 – all the same person.
Most people like PE – stop being such an intolerant liberal douche.
“I was promised robots that would . . . submit to my sexual perversions.”
Elie,
I believe I can help.
“Welcome to the First Church of Appliantology.”
- L. Ron Hoover
41, I think the real question is whether this would fall under products liability or a cyber crime. If it’s PL, forseeable misuse could be a potential argument for making companies liable for screwy robots.
42,
Your assertion that most people “like” PE is is misguided. Does he occasionally write something to make one smirk? Yes. However; the general biglaw associate who reads this blog doesn’t give a flying fuck about what some idiotic 2L portraying a douchebag partner thinks about the current state of politics. Beyond that, PE is a shitty writer.
Asimov’s laws of robotics are as follows:
(1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
(2) A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
(3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
But lets be honest. The very first thing we will do with robots is have them kill people.
Sure, we’re already using their precursors (i.e. advanced machines) for it; see *Wired for War* by P.W. Singer.
well done 43
– huge fan of The Central Scrutinizer
“When I was a kid, I was promised robots that would clean my house and prepare my meals and submit to my sexual perversions. Yet here we are, well into the 21st century, and there is not a robot slave to be found.”
C’mon Elie, seriously? Robots like that have been around forever. They’re called wives.
What in the Hell does Calo know about robots?
Go Blue!
Isn’t this how the “Matrix” got started? Do we really want to go down this road?
well played, 49.
51 – Seriously. This isn’t going to end well for us.
2 already posted what I came here to post. Well played, sir.
Sideboob. It’s what I come here for.
@42 – You weren’t at his funeral, were you? You didn’t see Wilhemina Emeritus crying, and you didn’t see JaKe’s touching eulogy. If you would have been there, you would not tolerate a PE imposter.
ShaFeef was there too. Just ask him.
I’ve already decided that the sex bot is being reprogrammed as a gunslinger. So much more versitile.
46 – we already have those, they are called unmanned drones, and they kill terrorists and the occasional innocent bystanders
Is that jennifer lopez?
I like nothing better on a cold night than curling up with a cold peice of metal.
43 & 48 — you’ll love it. It’s a way of life
Why would the robot manufacturers be responsible?
If someone turns a Taurus into a car bomb, is Ford Motor Company liable?