Humanoid: A robot which resembles a human body, imitates a human’s intelligence, behaviour, sense, and interaction
“For some people, creating robots that look and act human, helps them take a much closer look at their own humanity.”
- REEM 2012, humanoid from PAL Robotics humanoid
- REEM 2012, humanoid from PAL Robotics humanoid
An important message to highlight here, is that humanoids do not have to be a negative impact for humanity. However, to ensure that human rights are protected through ethical policies, deliberation and preparation of the potential issues which may arise from the creation of humanoids is required before they become mainstreamed. for prevention is better than a cure, and if humanoids - or any AI or machine learning product - becomes mainstreamed before a thorough, all-inclusive ethical evaluation,
|
It has been argued that humans tend to anthropomorphize the machines that we build[1], which can be interpreted as “humans debating the nature of themselves.”[2]
It can be suggested that humanoids are neither human nor just mere tools[3], but a part material and part digital new species[4]. The ability for humanoids to appear so ‘human-like’, results in consequences for the ethics of robotics[5]. For how can we viably accept that machines - that look just like humans and are designed to fulfill typically human roles, (such as a sexual partner) - are still figuratively machines as much as any printer or dryer is? Although humanoids are not human, enacting actions upon them which would be considered a crime if done to a human being, such as assault, could generate negative implications for humans due to the desensitization towards humanoids, resulting in the conditioning of callous behaviours human-to-human[6]. |
Philosopher Blay Whitby urges us to act now, before it’s too late;
“We need to have these discussions instead of waking up one day when robot companions are normal and question whether it was a good idea or not." Humanoids do not have to be negative for humanity, it all depends on if and how we choose to implement a human rights based approach to their creation, and how we maintain it. |
|
Yet it has been argued that humanoids, no matter how human-like they may appear, are still just a programmed doll[7] and will always be far from being human[8]. This being largely because, as stated by McLaughlin; “Given the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe it is physically impossible for a mind (one essentially like ours) to be realized in something composed entirely of (e.g.) silicon.”[9]
|
Therefore the question remains, how will we humans share our world with such entities and how will this emerging AI technology alter who we are and how we humans act?
Due to the rapid progress made in this area of AI thus far, the future humanoids will become even more human-like. As people interact with humanoids on a more frequent basis, their implementation into our lives will become more prominent. Thus there is a need to examine and deliberate the potential ethical, societal and also the possible legal and economical issues which may arise from creating another 'species' - not just for individuals but for societies and the world as a whole.
As Jordan, (2016), states; “Given the breadth and magnitude of its impacts, robotics is simply too important, and now too close at hand, to be left only to technical specialists.”[10] A nuanced outside input from ethicists to psychologists is urgently needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
- A legally established Code of Conduct towards humanoids is needed to ensure that an ethical, human rights based approach succeeds in protecting people, without the normalization of desensitized abuse of humanoids seeping into how humans approach and treat one another.
- A legally established Code of Conduct towards humanoids is needed to ensure that an ethical, human rights based approach succeeds in protecting people, without the normalization of desensitized abuse of humanoids seeping into how humans approach and treat one another.
[1] Markoff, J. (2015). Our masters, slaves or partners?. In: J. Brockman, ed., What to think about machines that think. New York: Edge Foundation Inc.
[2] Kreye, A. (2015). A Jon Henry Moment. In: J. Brockman, ed. New York: Edge Foundation Inc.
[3] Coeckelbergh, M. (2009). Personal Robots, Appearance, and Human Good: AÂ Methodological Reflection on Roboethics. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(3), pp.217-221.
[4] Nourbakhsh, I. (2013). Robot futures. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
[5] Coeckelbergh, M. (2009). Personal Robots, Appearance, and Human Good: AÂ Methodological Reflection on Roboethics. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(3), pp.217-221.
[6] Peterson, S. (2014). Designing People to Serve. In: P. Lin, K. Abney and G. Bekey, ed., Robot Ethics. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
[7] Van der Made, P. (2013). Higher Intelligence. Cork: BookBaby.
[8] Krause, K. (2015). In: J. Brockman, ed., What to think about machines that think. New York: Edge Foundation Inc.
[9] McLaughlin, B. (2004). Computationalism, Connectionism and the Philosophy of Mind. In: L. Floridi, ed., Philosophy of Computing and Information. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
[10] Jordan, J. (2016). Robots. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.