Thinking about it, most of actions that we want robots to do are simply a matter of moving, holding and activating additional stuff. It's really interesting how many uses they can have, in spite of morals.
-
-
-
We're only scratching the surface. In some ways, robots have moved beyond what science fiction imagined (and in other ways not--like, say, C3PO). I take the moral question as separate from possible uses. Not unrelated, but separate. Morality is in the use, not the tool itself.
-
Surely, they have. However, looking from manufacturer's point of view, most of robotic projects need only 3 servos to work right. Also, we wanted to avoid talking about morality, because we don't think we'd be able to be morally responsible for our customers' actions.
-
I think that's the right choice. Many products have both moral and immoral uses. Robots--flying or otherwise--certainly do. Moral responsibility is on the users (as well as lawmakers).
-
What you said applies to all consumer goods, when you think about it. Surely, it would be harder to do harm with a, say, spoon than with a drone and with a drone than with a knife, but social and legal rules are the same for them and for their users (in most cases).
-
I think cars are the closest analogue (though still different in important ways). Immoral when someone deliberately uses one maliciously. Quite dangerous when used carelessly. Also very useful, and used morally most of the time.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.