Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>



  • pg 1
									Do we need

1. Pragmatic definition of intelligence: “an intelligent
   system is a system with the ability to act
   appropriately (or make an appropriate choice or
   decision) in an uncertain environment.”
    –   An appropriate action (or choice) is that which
        maximizes the probability of successfully achieving
        the mission goals (or the purpose of the system)
2. Intelligence need not be at the human level

intelligence                      morality
Robot Morality is a relatively new
 research area which is becoming
 very popular because of military
      and assistive robotics.
              WHY ROBOT MORALITY ?
 Robots are becoming                 These robots live in human
  technically extremely               environment and can harm humans
  sophisticated.                      physically.
                                      Military unmanned vehicles are robots
                                          Space, air, ground, water
 The emerging robot is a
  machine with sensors,
  processors, and effectors able
  to perceive the environment,
  have situational awareness,
  make appropriate decisions,
  and act upon the environment
    Various sensors: active and
     passive optical and ladar
     vision, acoustic, ultrasonic,
     RF, microwave, touch, etc.
    Various effectors: propellers,
     wheels, tracks, legs, hybrids
    Ethical concerns: Robot behavior
• How do we want our intelligent systems to behave?

• How can we ensure they do so?

• Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics:
    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 orders given 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.
         Ethical concerns: Human behavior

1. Is it morally justified to create intelligent systems with these
     –   As a secondary question, would it be possible to do so?

2. Should intelligent systems have free will? Can we prevent them
   from having free will??

3. Will intelligent systems have consciousness? (Strong AI)
     –   If they do, will it drive them insane to be constrained by artificial ethics
         placed on them by humans?

4. If intelligent systems develop their own ethics and morality, will
   we like what they come up with?
Department of Defense (DOD) PATH
 Many taxonomies have been used for robotic air, ground, and water vehicles:
  based on size, endurance, mission, user, C3 link, propulsion, mobility, altitude,
  level of autonomy, etc., etc.
All autonomous future military robots will need morality,
         household and assistive robots as well
   Various control system
       deliberative,
       reactive,
       hybrid
   Various command, control, and
    communications systems:
         cable,
         fiber optic,
         RF,
          laser,
          acoustic
   Various human/machine
       displays,
       telepresence,
       virtual reality
   Various theories of intelligence
    and autonomy;
         Evolutionary
         Probabilistic
         Learning
         Developmental                Can we build morality without
         Cognitive
Morality for non-military robots that deal
          directly with humans.

 The Tokyo University of Science: Saya
        Robots that look human
• "Robots that look human tend to be a big hit
  with young children and the elderly,"
  – Hiroshi Kobayashi, Tokyo University of Science
    professor and Saya's developer, said yesterday.

• "Children even start crying when they are

   Human-Robot Interaction with
   human-like humanoid robots

• "Simply turning our grandparents over to
  teams of robots abrogates our society's
  responsibility to each other, and encourages a
  loss of touch with reality for this already
  mentally and physically challenged
  – Kobayashi said.

    Can robots replace humans?
• Noel Sharkey, robotics expert and professor at
  the University of Sheffield, believes robots can
  serve as an educational aid in inspiring
  interest in science, but they can't replace

           Robot to help people?

• Kobayashi says Saya is just meant to help
  people and warns against getting hopes up
  too high for its possibilities.
• "The robot has no intelligence. It has no
  ability to learn. It has no identity," he said. "It
  is just a tool.„


MechaDroyd Typ C3
   Business Design, Japan

                            What kind of morality
                            we expect from:
                            - Robot for disabled?
                            - Receptionist robot?
                            - Robot housemaide?
                            - Robot guide ?

 Human Robot

Robots for elderly in
                Jobs for robots

• TOKYO (Reuters) - Robots could fill the jobs of
  3.5 million people in graying Japan by 2025,
  – a thinktank says, helping to avert worker
    shortages as the country's population shrinks.

      Robots to fill jobs in Japan
• Japan faces a 16 percent slide in the size of its
  workforce by 2030 while the number of
  elderly will mushroom, the government
  estimates, raising worries about who will do
  the work in a country unused to, and unwilling
  to contemplate, large-scale immigration.

        HR-Interaction in Japan
       Robots to fill jobs in Japan
• The thinktank, the Machine Industry
  Memorial Foundation, says robots could help
  fill the gaps, ranging from microsized capsules
  that detect lesions to high-tech vacuum

        HR-Interaction in Japan
       Robots to fill jobs in Japan
• Rather than each robot replacing one person,
  the foundation said in a report that robots
  could make time for people to focus on more
  important things.“

  What is more important than work?
• What kind of „more important things“?

• This is an ethical question.

  using robots that monitor the health of
           older people in Japan

„Japan could save 2.1 trillion yen ($21 billion) of
  elderly insurance payments in 2025 by using
  robots that monitor the health of older
  people, so they don't have to rely on human
  nursing care, the foundation said in its report.

  Plans for robot nursing in Japan

• What are the consequences for relying on
  robot nursing?

• This is an ethical question.
                Assistive Robots
• Caregivers would save more than an hour a
  day if robots:
  1.   helped look after children,
  2.   helped older people,
  3.   did some housework
  4.   reading books out loud
  5.   helping bathe the elderly
  How children and elderly will respond?

1. How will children and elderly react to robots
   taking „care“ of them?
2. This is an ethical question.
              Seniors in Japan
  – "Seniors are pushing back their retirement until
    they are 65 years old,
  – day care centers are being built so that more
    women can work during the day,
  – and there is a move to increase the quota of
    foreign laborers.
  – But none of these can beat the shrinking
• said Takao Kobayashi, who worked on the
            Seniors in in Japan
"Robots are important because they could help
  in some ways to alleviate such shortage of the
  labor force."
            Seniors in in Japan

• How far will they alleviate such shortage of
  the labor force?

• And with what consequences?

• This is an ethical question.
             Seniors in in Japan
• Kobayashi said changes was still needed for robots to
  make a big impact on the workforce.
• "There's the expensive price tag, the functions of the
  robots still need to improve, and then there are the
  mindsets of people," he said.
• "People need to have the will to use the robots."
         Seniors in in Japan

The „mindsets of people“: This is THE
 ethical question!
          First robots in Entertainment
 Neologism derived from Czech noun
  "robota" meaning "labor"
    Contrary to the popular opinion, not
     originated by (but first popularized by)
     Karel Capek, the author of RUR
    Originated by Josef Capek, Karel’s older
     brother (a painter and writer)
 “Robot” first appeared in Karel Capek’s
  play RUR, published in 1920
    Some claim that "robot" was first used in
     Josef Capek's short story Opilec (the
     Drunkard) published in the collection Lelio
     in 1917, but the word used in Opilec is
    Robots revolt against their human masters
     – a cautionary lesson now as then
                   WHAT IS A ROBOT?
 Many taxonomies
    Control taxonomy
         Pre-programmed (automatons)
         Remotely-controlled (telerobots)
         Supervised autonomous
         Autonomous
    Operational medium taxonomy
         Space
         Air
         Ground
         Sea
         Hybrid
    Functional taxonomy
         Military
         Industrial
         Household
         Commercial
    Etc.
Sony: Aibo
„Love robots“ in Japan
EMA (Eternal Maiden Actualization) in Japan

                                             What kind of
                                             intelligence and
                                             morality you
                                             would expect
                                             from an ideal
                                             robot for
Why Ethics
of Robots?
          Why Ethics of Robots?
1. Robots behave according to rules we program

2. We are responsible for their behavior

3. But as they are „autonomous“ they can
   „decide“ what to do or not in a specific

4. This is the human/robot moral dilemma
          Ethics of Robots: West and East

Rougly speaking:
1. Europe: Deontology (Autonomy, Human Dignity,
   Privacy, Anthropocentrism): Scepticism with regard
   to robots
2. USA (and anglo-saxon tradition): Utilitarian Ethics:
   will robots make „us“ more happy?
3. Eastern Tradition (Buddhism): Robots as one more
   partner in the global interaction of things
         Ethics & Robots: West and East

• Morality and Ethics:
  1. Ethics as critical reflection (or problematization)
     of morality
  2. Ethics is the science of morals as robotics is the
     science of robots
    Concrete moral traditions
• Different ontic or concrete historical moral
  traditions, for instance
  1. in Japan:
     1. Seken (trad. Japanese morality),
     2. Shakai (imported Western morality)
     3. Ikai (old animistic tradition)
  2. In the „Far West“:
     1.   Ethics of the Good (Plato, Aristotle),
     2.   Christian Ethics,
     3.   Utilitarian Ethics,
     4.   Deontological Ethics (Kant)
   Ethics & Robots: Ontological Dimensions

• Ontological dimension: Being or (Buddhist)
   – Nothingness as the space of open possibilities that allow
     us to critizise ontic moralities

• Always related to basic moods (like sadness,
  happiness, astonishment, …)
   – through which the uniqueness of the world and human
     existence is experienced (differently in different cultures)
        Asimo‘s evolution
        Asimo‘s evolution

                                      If the robot looks like a human,
                                      do we have different

                                      Would you “kill” a robot car?

                                      Would you “kill” a robot insect
                                      that would react by squeaky
                                      noises and escape in panic?

                                      Would you “kill” a robot biped
                                      that would react by begging you
                                      to save his life?
Why Ethics
of Robots?
          Why Ethics of Robots?
• Ethics is thinking about human rules of
  good/bad behavior:
  1.   Towards each other
  2.   Towards non-human living beings
  3.   Towards the environment
  4.   Towards artificial products
  5.   Towards other societies or nations
  6.   Towards the God or gods, culture-depending
AA versus AC versus
   AE versus AI?
•   Artificial Agency (AA)
•   Artificial Consciousness (AC)
•   Artificial Ethics (AE)
•   Artificial Intelligence

    … our interaction with them;

    … and our ethical relation to them.
                    Artificial X

• One kind of definition-schema:

• Creating machines which perform in ways which
  require X when humans perform in those ways…
  – (or which justify the attribution of X?)

• ‘Outward’ performance, versus psychological
  reality ‘within’?
                          X= Intelligence, = Life, =
                          Morality, etc.
        Artificial Consciousness

• Artificial Consciousness (AC):
   creating machines which perform in ways which
   require consciousness when humans perform in
   those ways (?)

• Where is the psychological reality of
  consciousness in this?
   ‘functional’ versus ‘phenomenal’ consciousness?
   Shallow and deep AC research

• Shallow AC – developing functional replications of
  consciousness in artificial agents

  – Without any claim to inherent psychological reality

• Deep AC – developing psychologically real
  (‘phenomenal’) consciousness
           Continuum or divide?

• Continuum or divide? (discrete or analog?)

   – Is deep AC realizable using current computationally-based
     technologies (or does it require biological replications)?
   – Will it require Quantum Computing or biology-like

• Thin versus thick phenomenality

   – (See S.Torrance ‘Two Concepts of Machine Phenomenality’,
     (to be submitted, JCS)
           Real versus simulated AC -
       an ethically significant boundary?
1. Psychologically real versus just simulated artificial consciousness…

   -> This appears to mark an ethically significant boundary

    (perhaps unlike the comparable boundary in AI?)

• Not to deny that debates like the Chinese Room have aroused strong
  passions over many years…

   – Working in the area of AC
   – (unlike working in AI?)

   – … puts special ethical responsibilities on shoulders of researchers
• This takes us into the area of techno-ethics –

   – Reflection on the ethical responsibilities of those who are involved in technological R &
     (including the technologies of artificial agents (AI, robotics, MC, etc.))

• Broadly, techno-ethics can be defined as:
   – Reflection on how we, as developers and users of technologies,
   …ought to use such technologies to best meet
       our existing ethical ends,
       within existing ethical frameworks

   – Much of the ethics of artificial agent research comes
     under the general techno-ethics umbrella
                    From techno-ethics to
                       artificial ethics
• What’s special about the artificial agent research is that
  the artificial agents so produced may count (in various
  senses) as ethical agents in their own right
   – This may involve a revision of our existing ethical conceptions
     in various ways
   – Particularly when we are engaged in research in
     (progressively deeper) artificial consciousness

• Bearing this in mind, we need to distinguish between
  techno-ethics and artificial ethics
   – (The latter may overlap with the former)
  Techno-ethics – our                     Artificial ethics – what
  responsibility for our                  ethics we will put to
  creations                               future robots
Towards artificial ethics (AE)

 • A key puzzle in AE
   – Perhaps ethical reality (or real ethical status) goes
     together with psychological reality??

              Can a robot be ethical if
              he is not psychologically
              similar to you?
                    Shallow and deep AE
• Shallow AE –
     1. Developing ways in which the artificial agents we produce can conform to,
        simulate, the ethical constraints we believe desirable
     2. (Perhaps a sub-field of techno-ethics?)
                                                             You do not want your
                                                             robot to hurt humans
•   Deep AE –                                                (or other robots?)
     – Creating beings with inherent ethical status?

• Rights of robots, rights of human “owners” of robots?

• Responsibilities of robots, responsibilities of humans towards robots?

•   The boundaries between shallow and deep AE may be perceived as fuzzy
     – And may be intrinsically fuzzy…
     Proliferation of new technologies in
                   the world
• A reason for taking this issue seriously:

   – AA, AC, etc. as potential mass-technologies

• Tendency for successful technologies to proliferate across
  the globe

   – What if AC becomes a widely adopted technology?

                                            1.     Every body would like
• This should raise questions both:
                                                   to have a robot slave.
   – of a techno-ethical kind;
   – and of a kind specific to AE            2.    Every educated/rich
                                                    roman had a slave
                                             3.    Every professor in 19
                                                   century had a maid.
Instrumental versus intrinsic stance

     – Normally we take our technologies as our tools or instruments

•    Instrumental/intrinsic division in relation to psychological reality of

• As we progress towards deep AC there could be a blurring of the
  boundaries between the two…

     – (already seen in a small way with emerging ‘caring’ attitudes of humans
       towards ‘people-friendly’ robots)

• This is one illustration of the move from ‘conventional’ techno-ethics and
  artificial ethics
    Instrumental – robot is              Intrinsic – if an old lady has a robot that
    just a device                        she loves, her children cannot just throw
                                         the old robot to the garbage can.
              Artificial Ethics (AE)

• AE could be defined as
   – The activity of creating systems which perform in ways which
     imply (or confer) the possession of ethical status when humans
     perform in those ways. (?)

• The emphasis on performance could be questioned

• What is the relation between AE and Artificial
  Consciousness (AC)?

• What is ethical (moral) status?
Two key elements
 of moral status of
     a robot
1. Can robot harm community?
2. Can community harm the robot?   ( Totality of moral agents )
X is a
member of

      ( one moral agent )

                            ( Totality of moral agents )
       Two key elements of X’s moral
         status (in the eyes of Y)

• (a) X’s being the recipient or target of moral
  concern by Y (moral consumption) [Y X]

• (b) X’s being the source of moral concern
  towards Y (moral production) [X  Y]
        Ethical status in the absence of
1. Trying to refine our conception on the relation
   between AC and AE
2. What difference does consciousness make to
   artificial agency?
3. In order to shed light on this question we need
   to investigate

  –    the putative ethical status of artificial agents (AAs)
       when (psychologically real) consciousness is
       acknowledged to be ABSENT.
   Retired general has a superintelligent robot that does not look like a
   human and is not psychologically humanoid. Can he dismantle the
   robot to pieces for fun? Can he shoot at him as he paid for it?
      Our ethical interaction with non-
        conscious artificial agents…
• ?? Could non-conscious artificial agents have
  genuine moral status …

• (a) As moral consumers?
  – (having moral claims on us)

• (b) As moral producers?
  – (having moral responsibilities towards us (and
                                        The robot that
           The dog or horse
           that kills a human
                                ?       kills a human is
           is ordered by the
            law to be killed
   A Strong View of AE
• ‘Psychologically real’ consciousness is necessary
  for AAs to be considered BOTH
      (a)as genuine moral consumers
      (b) as genuine moral producers
• – AND there are strong constraints on what
  counts as ‘psychologically real’ consciousness.

• So, on the ‘strong’ view, non-conscious AAs will
  have no real ethical status
                                       The MIT “strong AI researchers” will
                                       be now in trouble, explain why?
• One way to weaken the strong view:
  – by accepting weaker criteria for what counts as
    ‘psychologically real’ consciousness –

  – e.g. by saying ‘Of course you need consciousness
    for ethical status, but soon robots, etc. will be
    conscious in a psychologically real sense.’
A weaker view of AE
• Psychologically real consciousness is NOT
  necessary for an Artificial Agent (AA) to be
   – (a) as a genuine moral producer
      • (i.e. as having genuine moral responsibilities)

• But it may be necessary for an AA to be considered
   – (b) as a genuine moral consumer
      • (i.e. as having genuine moral claims on the moral community)
        A version of the weaker view
A version of the weaker view is to be found in:
   1. Floridi, L. and Sanders, J. 2004. On the Morality of Artificial
       Agents, Minds and Machines , 14(3): 349-379.

   Floridi & Sanders: Some (quite ‘weak’ * kinds of) artificial agents
      may be considered as having a genuine kind of moral
       • even if not moral ‘responsibility’ in a full-blooded sense

   – * ( i.e. this kind of moral status may attach to such agents
     quite independently of their status as conscious agents)
          Examining the strong view

• See Steve Torrance, “Ethics and Consciousness in Artificial
  Agents”, Artificial Intelligence and Society

• Being a fully morally responsible agent requires
  1. empathetic intelligence or rationality;
  2. moral emotions or sensibilities

• These seem to require presence of psychologically real

• BUT….
  Shallow artificial ethics: a paradox

• Paradox:

   – Even if not conscious, we will expect artificial agents to
     behave ‘responsibly’ –
       To perform ‘outwardly’ to ethical standards of conduct

• This creates an urgent and very challenging
  programme of research for now…

   developing appropriate ‘shallow’ ethical simulations…

        1. How you can make a robot responsible for its actions if he has
           no real morality.
        2. If he has real morality you cannot kill him.
      Who is responsible: robot or the
• Locus of responsibility

• Where would the locus of responsibility of such systems lie?

    – For example, when they ‘break down’, give wrong advice, etc…?

• On current consensus: With designers, operators rather than with
  AA itself.

•    If only with human designers/users, then such ‘moral’ AAs don’t
    seem to have genuine moral status – even as moral producers?

    »BUT…              1. Is Alan responsible if his robot will insult the US
                          President during a visit?
                       2. Is the robot responsible?
                       3. Is PSU responsible?
                       4. Perkowski?
          Moral implications of increasing
           cognitive superiority of AAs
• We’ll communicate with artificial agents (AAs) in
  richer and subtler ways
• We may look to AAs for ‘moral’ advice and support
• We may defer to their normative decisions
    – E.g when multiplicity of factors require superior cognitive
      powers to humans
           Automated ‘moral pilot’ systems?

                                Whom to blame for
                                bad behavior of
  Busy parents
                                children?                 Roman children
  professionals will rely
  on a robot to give                                      loved often their
  moral advice to their          What if the child will
  children.                      love robot more than     Greek slave teachers
                                 the Mommie?              more than parents.
              Non-conscious AAs as
                moral producers
• None of these properties seem to require
    So the strong view seems to be in doubt?
    Perhaps non-conscious AAs can be genuine moral
                                                 Killing a slave or
                                                 “low-class” people in
                                                 the past

• The question of ‘When can we trust a moral judgment
  given by a machine?’
    See answer in: Blay Whitby, “Computing Machinery and
    Morality” submitted, AI and Society
• So…

• So non-conscious artificial agents perhaps
  could be ‘genuine’ moral producers

  – At least in limited sorts of ways
• In contrast, in a paper ‘Ethics and
Consciousness in Artificial Agents’ the author believes:

• Having the capacity for genuine morally
responsible judgment and action require a kind of
empathic rationality

• And it’s difficult to see how such empathic rationality
could exist in a being which didn’t have psychologically
real consciousness
• In any case, it will be a hard and complex
              job to ensure that
     the “robots designed for morality”
       will simulate moral production
       in an ethically acceptable way.
   AAs as
   Non-conscious AAs as
     moral consumers
• What about non-conscious AAs as moral
  – (i.e. as candidates for our moral concern)?
  – Our moral responsibility for a robot?

• Could it ever be rational for us to consider
  ourselves as having genuine moral obligations
  towards non-conscious AAs?
              Consciousness and
              moral consumption
• At first sight – being a ‘true’ moral
consumer seems to require being
able to consciously experience pain,
distress, need, satisfaction, joy,
sorrow, etc.

– i.e. psychologically real consciousness

• Otherwise why waste resources?
 Can we dispose robots at our will when convenient?
 ….
Example of our responsibility for a robot:
    The case of property ownership

 • AAs may come to have interests which we
 may be legally (and morally?) obliged to

 • Andrew Martin – he is a robot in Bicentennial
   – Andre acquires (through courts) legal entitlement
     to own property in his own ‘person’
  Bicentennial Man
Bicentennial Man

• Household android is
acquired by Martin family
– christened Andrew
• His decorative products

– exquisitely crafted from
driftwood –

become highly prized
collectors' items
Bicentennial Man (cont)
        Bicentennial Man (cont)
• Andrew, arguably, has legal
rights to his property;
  • It would be morally wrong for us not to
  respect them (e.g. to steal from him)
  • His rights to maintain his property
     – (and our obligation not infringe those rights)
     … does not depend on our attributing
     consciousness to him …
         Bicentennial Man (cont)
A case of robot moral
(not just legal) rights?

• Andrew, arguably, has moral, not just legal
rights to his property;

• Would it not be morally wrong for us not
to respect his legal rights?
   – (morally wrong, e.g., to steal from him?)
         Bicentennial Man (cont)

      Does it matter if he is non-conscious?

• Arguably, Andrew’s moral rights to
maintain his property

– (and our moral obligation to not infringe those

… do not depend on our attributing
consciousness to him …
          Bicentennial Man (cont)

• On the legal status of artificial agents, see

   – David Calverley, “Imagining a Non-Biological Machine
   as a Legal Person”,
       • Submitted, Artificial Intelligence and Society

• For further related discussion of Asimov’s
Bicentennial Man, see

   – Susan Leigh Anderson, “Asimov’s “Three Laws of
   Robotics” and Machine Metaethics”
 Can developing
Robots affect the
  whole human
 civilization and
    fate of the
   Universe ?
           Hugo De Garis

  The question is not if we will design
intelligent robots, the questions is if we
should design gods who will supersede
  our intelligence and consciousness.

        Artilects, Artilect wars?
 First order impacts: linear
  extrapolation – faster, better,
 Second and third order
  impacts: non-linear, more
   difficult to forecast
 Analogy: The automobile
  in 1909
     Faster, better, cheaper
      than horse and buggy
      (but initially does not
      completely surpass
      previous technology)
                                    Having no intelligence and
     Then industrial changes:      consciousness, our life affected
      rise of automotive            morally and intellectually by new
      industry, oil industry,       technology development like cars
      road & bridge                 or TV or computers.
      construction, etc.
            Influence of cars on our lives!
 Then cars affected
  social changes:
    clothing,
    rise of suburbs,
    family structure
     (teenage drivers,
    increasing wealth
    and personal
 Then cars affected
    oil cartels,
    foreign policy,
    religious and tribal
    wars,
    environmental
    and global
1. We need to distinguish between shallow and deep AC and AE

2. We need to distinguish techno-ethics from artificial ethics
   (especially strong AE)

3. There seems to be a link between an artificial agent’s status
   as a conscious being and its status as an ethical being

4. A strong view of AC says that genuine ethical status in
   artificial agents (both as ethical consumers and ethical
   producers) requires psychologically real consciousness in such

5. Questions can be raised about the strong view -
   (automated ethical advisors; property ownership)

6. There are many important ways in which a kind of
   (shallow) ethics has to be developed for present day
   and future non-conscious agents.

7. But in an ultimate, ‘deep’ sense, perhaps AC and AE go
   together closely

  –   (see paper ‘Ethics and Consciousness in Artificial Agents’
      for defense of the strong view much more robustly, as the
      ‘organic’ view.)
       Sources of slides

           Robert Finkelstein
Steve Torrance, Middlesex University, UK


        Steinbeis Transfer Institut – Information Ethics (STI-IE)

                   University of Tsukuba, Japan

                         September 30, 2009
This is an expanded version of a talk given at a
conference of the ETHICBOTS project in
Naples, Oct 17-18, 2006.

See S. Torrance; ‘The Ethical Status of Artificial Agents – With and
Without Consciousness’ (extended abstract), in G. Tamburrin and E.
Datteri (eds) Ethics of Human Interaction with Robotic, Bionic and AI
Systems: Concepts and Policies, Napoli: Istituto Italiano per gli Studi
Filosofici, 2006.
See also S. Torrance, ‘Ethics and Consciousness in Artificial
Agents’, submitted to Artificial Intelligence and Society

To top