LAW AND ROBOTS:

THE REALITY

Lilian EdwardsProfessor of E-Governance

University of Strathclyde

Nine WorldsAugust 2013

Robot imagery?

FICTION Terminator 2 – mp4 Robbie the Robot MariaREALITY Asimo Nao ROXXY, Geminoid F

Metropolis1927

1956/ 1965

Nao, U Herts , 2010

ASIMO (Honda)2002-

Reality robots

Industrial robots

Military robots

Robot bomb defuser

PARO

HELPER ROBOTS: Japan's population is ageing rapidly, with over 22% of the population aged 65 or older, overworked kids & few immigrant/low paid carers

MOBISERV EU project 2013

HAL exo skeleton

Robot transport – driverless cars

Sexbots

ROXXY, New Jersey, 2010

Ishiguro’s GEMINOID F2013

What this talk isn’t about Human-intelligent robots /“Strong AI” The “singularity” Hence not,

robots having “legal personality” (can sue, be accused of crimes)

Transhumanism (human mind into metal container)

Cyborgism (human mind/body enhanced by robotics) – or not very much!

What it is about Here and now robots “about as

intelligent as dishwashers”, or lobsters (Winfield)

Not necessarily or even often humanoid Features:

“intelligence”autonomous action; learning and adaptation; embodiment cf Skynet; Google;

Twitterbots/agentsmobility

Who do lawyers suddenly care about robots?

Robots now moving into consumer, domestic, and “caring” environments – not just industrial/military

Current/near current legal issues – 5-10 years away Not just about hypothetical morality, ethics or

philosophy – real problems beginning Privacy; liability; crime; evidence; road traffic law! Ethics & social issues eg under age sexbots, saving

lives with driverless cars, leaving old people alone, environment, employment impact, robowar and unequal conflict/civilian & humanitarian impact..

More interesting than Skynet!

How to regulate robots? Robots as legal category – general regulation?

Legal analogies: Person (legal personality) Slave (lesser legal personality – cf Roman law of

slavery to get round agency issues re bots) Animal? (animate, sub-legal personality,

unpredictable cf cats, some anthropomorphism) Tool – machine – car – manaufactured object –

“product liability” for consumer safety Fails to capture aspect of

learning/adaptivity/unpredictability Or the “state of the art” defense

Software?

My approach as lawyer Problems caused?

*Liability for harm caused (who is responsible?)

*Privacy (is a care robot in the home or hospice 24/7 surveillance? Control & vulnerable people?);

Criminal law (can a driverless car lose its license? Can a robot surgeon or mining robot kill? Can a robot carer “give evidence” in court re suspicious death?)

Humanitarian law (Can a robot soldier break laws of war? If a drone plane takes out civilians can US (say) be brought to ICC ?)

“General regulation”: Asimov’s Three laws of Robotics

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

3 (5) Laws for Roboticists Edwards' Three Laws for Roboticists (from EPSRC Sandpit, 2010)

1.Robots are multi-use tools. Robots should not be designed solely or primarily to kill, except in the interests of national security.

2 Humans are responsible for the actions of robots. Robots should be designed & operated as far as is practicable to comply with existing laws & fundamental rights and freedoms, including privacy.

3) Robots are products. As such they should be designed using processes which assure their safety and security (which does not exclude their having a reasonable capacity to safeguard their integrity).

.. Plus..

Robots are manufactured artefacts, so they should not be designed in a deceptive way to exploit vulnerable users (“their machine nature should be transparent”);

It should always be possible to find out who is legally responsible for a robot. (cf registered keeper of cars? Person who “signed” contract to buy robot?)

See Winfield, New Scientist, 9 May2011

Probem approach: Liability case study

A military robot kills a civilian by mistake A mining robot excavates wrong area and

landslip results damaging civilian houses A Roomba trips up an old person who hurts

herself A care robot fails to stop one child from hitting

another (?) as not in programmed remit; or report an old person swallowing too many pills (not too few)

A sex robot “learns” one kind of behaviour from person A (eg caning) that causes harm to person B

A driverless car is hacked so that it has an accident leading to economic/physical harm

Liability models - 1 Negligence

Issues : proof of fault ie breach of duty of care? Contractual exclusion of liability?

Who is liable – manufacturer – programmer – “trainer” – owner – leaser – user?)

Product liability = Strict liability for manufacturer if defect => damage. US/EU differences. In EU: state of art defense does not currently apply if the defect causing

the damage came into being after the product was put into circulation (learning)

3rd party intereference; What if eg robot car is hacked?

Liability models - 2

Animals : cf PARO Liability of custodian (cf user, or owner – not

necc the same) =strict liability or liability after some notice (1 bite) . Issues

Are robots tame or wild?? Bad analogy? Nature changes, harms v

different. Children:

VERY divergent civil/common law traditions etc. Eg Scots law , no automatic resp of parent for child’s delicts.

Robots have no ability to reach “maturity”?

Liability models - 3 Contract: Allocate liability by contract.

Fair to consumers? The new Facebook T & C? The “small print” and “shrink wrap” problems.

An insurance market. Cf cars – things we own very liekly to hurt

others or ourselves. Likely to arise for driverless cars anyway, but other robot classes?

Establishing actuarial risks v difficult. Compulsory insurance of owner?

We don’t require insurance for dishwashers – or even pets!

A few final thoughts Is there value to considering robots as a

special category for “rules” cf Asimov? Is there value to considering robots as a

special catgory even for liability? Not clear. Are we worried about the growth of domestic

surveillance by robots of our most vulnerable people? (cf Google Glass – public!)

Lack of jurisdictional harmonisation for laws will be huge issue: Japanese robot, software from US, used in EU?

Do we want THIS?