Isaac Asimov's Three Laws Of Robotics

When Isaac Asimov envisioned a world in which robots would be as common as humans, he determined all of the ethics and morals that would bind these smart machines with three rules: “1. A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction allow it to come to harm, 2. A robot must always obey a human, unless this conflicts with the first law, 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as this doesn’t interfere with the first or second law” (Asimov, 1941). These three statements were baptized as the Three Laws of Robotics, and to the day they serve as a standard for robots and a goal for artificial intelligence researchers. But as the Laws were created in a time when people thought that by 2015 visiting Mercury would be a routine
operation, mankind should consider revising to which extent is Asimov’s proposed robotic ethics valid. For example, just the very definition of robots has transformed, as what used to be defined as a “mechanical human” is nowadays “any machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer” (Oxford). This just goes to prove that even the most basic technological terms change with time, and in the intersection of two fields in a constant and rapid state of evolution such as technology and ethics, three statements may not cover all the moral debate that the use of robots in mankind’s everyday life entails.
The best way to examine this is to rely on a case vividly happening at the time: the rise on the use of automatization.
Defined as “make automatic or habitual”, this term is used on technology and business as the method of employing machines in tasks or jobs that would have orthodoxly been performed by a person. More than a few consider this process as impossible, as “just a theory”, but fail to realize that it has already happened once: during the Industrial Revolution. For the sake of language precision, it must be stated that it wasn’t the Industrial Revolution, but the invention of a practical steam engine what really triggered the first massive use of automatization. “Scientists began tinkering seriously with steam in the early 1600s and, like most inventions of the day, it was a team effort that ultimately led to the first working steam engine” (Whipps, 2008). The result was that factories no longer needed to employ forty people to work, but just one to take care of the machines, effectively replacing the other thirty nine. This proves that machines replacing humans isn’t just an irrational idea, and the contemporary growth in the amount of both technological improvements and use of automatization may indicate that mankind is standing at the verge of a second Industrial
Revolution.
Now that the concept of human replacement by robots has been proved possible, it arises the need to evaluate what consequences or benefits this may have. For example, the first time that machines replaced humans at such a large scale, the result was an economic crisis so grave it resulted in the creation of a whole class of people willing to risk their very well being for a meager salary, also known as the working class (Whipps, 2008). Many people fear that automatization will have the same effect if implemented on this day and age, but when looking at the current examples of automatization such as automatic cashiers or online shopping, it can be seen that the change is gradual rather than sudden as many people still prefer face to face contact on purchasing interactions. Also some of the works that machines do are performed by them rather than humans because they may pose a threat to human workers, such as working underground or with dangerous chemical components.
One of the most controversial fields that automatization may reach some day is all that is pertinent to medical analysis, operations, or investigations; and such controversy is based on the popular belief that both the doctor’s education and instinct can’t be emulated.
To a certain extent this statement may be correct: even if it is theoretically possible for an A.I. (defined as “a machine with code that includes the ability to learn” (Oxford)) to eventually undergo the necessary studies to learn the medical profession, intuition based on instinct and experience can’t be replicated. So full automatization may be impossible to implement on medical professions, but that hasn’t stopped doctors and surgeons that sometimes rely on machines to perform better. This concept, to enhance human action with machines, may be defined as a “hybrid automatization” and is already used in many countries at medical operations. It is not unthinkable to predict that machines may eventually undertake routinary procedures on their own, and “robot nurses, or at least assistant robot nurses, may have a place in the future” (Scutti, 2015). Also, many of the newly released wearable technology has the potential to monitor some of the user’s vitals such as heart rate. This may be a glimpse to a future in which doctors will have a 24/7 databank on the user (recollected by their watch) to rely on for their
diagnosis
Another controversy while dealing with automatization can be found when dealing with professions that rely on human contact, as to the date it has been impossible for programmers or computer scientists to create a practical and effective imitation of such contact such as caretaking or teaching. The people performing these jobs often go above and beyond with the people under their care, transcending from their profession into a friendship that aids the performance of both. Even thought, automatization may reach this professions eventually, as even if some trouble could result, the use of machines would also offer some perks, such as 24/7 availability.
After examining all the morals in play when using automatization in these areas, it can be seen that Asimov’s laws may be too general. Instead, they should be used to create a new golden suggestion (rather than rule) should be coined. I believe that it is ethic to use machines in any ways that are meant to improve, lengthen or maximize human lives, but never to maximize in any way harm to human lives.