zurück zum Artikel

Ethical and Sociological Considerations

There are more and more service robots in "open" spaces. They are on their way in places that many of us share, and that are public. This poses various challenges. The present article addresses these challenges - from the moral and social points of view - and proposes solutions, among other things on the ethical, technical and organizational level, as well as offering assistance for roboticists and for legislative and political instances.

Robots have long been machines seen only by few people, at least in Western societies. They were locked up in cages in factories, and used as tools for specific tasks, be it for bomb disposal or exploring of the environment. Industry robots and especially space robots or combat robots many people still only know from pictures. The situation is different with service robots. The use of vacuuming robots is widely spread, as are mowing robots for lawns, and pool robots for swimming pools. Their places of use are not special but ordinary, and more or less clearly limited and restricted "half-open" and "closed" spaces (that differ from computer games in as far as they are not really closed, but permeated by coincidences and bustling with people).

Another species of service robots is now on its way aiming to achieve not only a high brand awareness, but also a high mobility and dissemination. In this article, I will deal with service robots operating in common and public spaces, and will outline social and moral questions as well as give solutions for specific problems - because certain problems become immediately apparent. The service robots with which we deal here are on their way in more or less complex surroundings and come upon many objects, which they must constantly assess - mostly in their function as autonomous or semi-autonomous machines - and they encounter people as well as animals. As it were, accidents and misunderstandings are inevitable. Some problems are addressed by information ethics, sociology and psychology, some solutions offered by machine ethics, which links ethics, robotics and artificial intelligence (AI). Therefrom may result guidelines for roboticists, as well as for legislative and political instances.

The focus is on robots with which we share sidewalks, paths of all kinds, squares destined for pedestrians, and public spaces in buildings and on sites. This eliminates, for example, drones (which mainly travel in the air, although they hinder rescue work near the ground every now and then, and even clash with vehicles) and autonomous cars. They all partly cause different problems, which have been dealt with already in various ways. Further species of robots that are not dealt with are such which are used in the home or in the garden, like the vacuuming or mowing robots mentioned before, or window and grill cleaning robots, as well as nursing and therapy robots, which are used in hospitals and nursing facilities [6]. Then again, space and combat robots have their use in far too specific situations. What this article deals with are certain autonomous or partially autonomous service robots in "half-open" and "open" spaces or, as the title of the article proclaims, those one encounters in common and public spaces.

Fields of Applied Ethics and Machine Ethics

Applied ethics refers to definable subject areas and generates individual or special ethics. These ethics, where relevant, I will present briefly in the following, and machine ethics and other relevant disciplines will be outlined [1, 4].

The subject of information ethics is the morality of (in) the information society. It investigates, how we (have to) behave morally when offering and taking advantage of information and communication technologies (ICT), information systems and digital media [4]. From a certain perspective, information ethics that comprises computer, network and new media ethics, is at the core of special ethics, because these must necessarily deal with it, since ICT and information systems penetrate all application areas.

Technology ethics deals with moral issues regarding the use of engineering and technology. It can concern the technology of vehicles or weapons as well as nanotechnology or nuclear power [4]. In the information society, where more and more technologies include computer technology, technology ethics is particularly closely connected with information ethics or even partially submerges in it.

The subject of machine ethics is the morality of machines, in particular of (partially) autonomous systems like chatbots, certain robots and drones, and autonomous cars [9]. As machine ethics can be considered the counterpart of human ethics it is notably not a field of applied ethics, but a new "main ethics". The concept of morality is quite controversial here. It may be noted, however, that autonomous systems have to make more and more decisions of moral relevance and that these can be also explicitly morally justified, for example in annotated decision trees [5]. When robot ethics is not exactly understood as part of machine ethics, it can be associated with information and technology ethics.

Social robotics deals with (partially) autonomous machines, which interact and communicate with humans in compliance with social rules and which are realized sometimes in humanoid shape, and which are mobile [4]. In this context, some experts allow only physically existing robots, but others also virtually implemented robots such as crawlers, chatbots, social bots and intelligent agents. Social robots often pretend feelings, and one speaks of "emotional and social robotics". If the machines have to be able to take morally adequate decisions, machine ethics is again in demand.

Social sciences such as sociology and psychology theoretically and empirically investigate people’s social lives and thereby their individual concerns. The subjects of sociology are the prerequisites, processes and consequences of living together as humans in the form of agents and patients of acts. The subjects of psychology are the experience and behavior of humans in the course of their lives.

Examples of Service Robots

Service robots are responsible for services, entertainment and attention; they pick up crockery and cutlery, food and medication, monitor the environment of their owners or the condition of patients and keep their surroundings in the desired condition. If they are equipped with sensors, if they have intelligence and memory, they gradually become omniscient companions. They know what their owner does, what he or she says, how he or she feels, what he or she is wearing, what is happening in their environment, and they know what passers-by in towns and villages are up to, and report it probably to their operators or devices, and computers of all kinds, such as the Internet of things.

Just like industrial robots increasingly leave their prisons and dwellings, and become increasingly mobile and universal, and continuously move closer to humans, the service robots increasingly free themselves from internal and external constraints and enter into a coexistence with us. By studying the literature and going through the world with open eyes, one more and more often meets service robots, subdivided as follows:

1. Safety and surveillance robots
2. Transport and delivery robots
3. Information and navigation robots
4. Entertainment and toy robots

Then there are, for example, the mentioned nursing and therapy robots and combat robots (if you want to include these as service robots), which in this article are no further addressed. Some of the species are on their way as prototypes, others in continuous and standardized use. Having multiple names for a species is not a coincidence; often multiple tasks are possible with a certain specification, and thus transport and delivery are very close. Hereafter, the species will be outlined briefly in relation to their purposes and functions, and exemplary products indicated [2].

Security and surveillance robots are spreading in urban districts, in shopping malls and on the company premises, as rolling and flying machines [3]. Their job is to take care of the safety of firms, visitors, and customers. The K5 by Knightscope, for example, "lives" in the shopping center at Stanford. It constantly rolls through the area and reports every unusual and suspicious incident to its central control office, which evaluates the situation and takes measures, where appropriate. The cone-shaped security and surveillance robot weighs over 100 kilos and is 1.20 meters high. Its Chinese counterpart, the AnBot, is equipped with a stun gun, which has to be released manually. Another surveillance robot is Sen.se (Mother), which is actually more a small-format monitor mainly intended for domestic use or the 7Links Home Security Rover HSR-1, which certainly can be considered a robot.

Transport and delivery robots convey items of all kinds, like parcels and purchases from one party (often the provider or broker) to another (often the customer) or they accompany and relieve pedestrians and cyclists of their burden. In 2016, Swiss Post tested small transport robots by Starship Technologies [14] in Berne, as did Hermes in Hamburg. They drive on their six wheels, so the plan, to a customer who opens the flap using a code he or she received via text message, and retrieves the parcel. These robots are quite small and light, half a meter high, and weigh approx. 20 kilos.

Another model is the Care-O-bot by Fraunhofer (150 kilos, 158 centimeters according to the data sheet), which will be used not only in nursing homes (it is in fact used as a prototype there), but also, for example, at trade fairs. A.L.O. is another example, a service robot, which brings orders to the room guests at a hotel in California. This robot, also known as "Botlr", is 91 centimeters high and weighs 45 kilos [12]. Gita by Piaggio is a "selfbalancing two-wheeled cargo robot", which strictly follows its owner or goes its own way, a self-rolling suitcase or a messenger on behalf of its master. Gita is 66 centimeters high, can carry up to 18 kilos and reaches up to 35 km/h [11].

Information and navigation robots drive or go through parks and sites, they walk about in museums, trade fairs and showrooms, and inform visitors and customers about events and sightseeing options and lead them to the desired location. They find - last but not least - their uses in hotels, at the reception desk for example [13]. Often they are equipped with displays, special touch screens and natural language skills. Accordingly, they provide textual or visual information or talk with their users. In addition, they use maps and technologies like GPS. An example is Obelix, as big as a teenager [10], which is meant to act as a tourist guide in cities, a prototype of the University of Freiburg, the ETH Zurich and other research and development facilities. Special devices are the so-called Beam. They do not roll autonomously about, but are remote-controlled. They are almost as big as an adult person. The delivery of presentation devices of this type can take place, among other things, with lidar.

Entertainment and toy robots serve the entertainment and amusement of users, not only of children and young persons, but also of adults. It is possible to use some of them for learning purposes. They dance, sing, play music, allow their construction and deconstruction, etc. Some are humanoid, others resemble animals. Some are as big as hands, others have the dimensions of cats or dogs, on which they may be modelled; others have the size of children and adolescents. WowWee and Splash Toys offer electronic toy dogs through online retailers. The LEGO robots (LEGO MINDSTORMS) take completely different shapes depending on the creativity of the user. Nao by Aldebaran or SoftBank can be used fairly universally, as well as Pepper by the same house, which is explicitly marketed as emotional robot able to detect and show emotions (but of course has not got any). Robots of this kind rarely leave a flat, a house or a building. Since they partly - as the latter models - are quite expensive, they are in use in common areas, often also in research institutions.

Problem Areas of Service Robots

Service robots mingling among us, living together with us, sharing our routes, zones and places with us, and being in our buildings, represent risks and opportunities, and some of them relate directly to us, our creature comforts, our physical integrity, our survival, all of which already addresses moral and social aspects. Hereinafter I will focus on problems and present solution approaches, but will also point out apparently unmanageable or immovable limits.

Collisions and Crashes

Most of the mentioned service robots vary in size between animals and humans. The parcel robot by Starship Technologies is the size of a smaller dog. When moving on the pavement of cities, which is the plan of most operators, it will inevitably become an obstacle. Pedestrians, often also skaters, scooters and cyclists are on their way on the pavement. If a robot of this kind comes around the corner or is simply overlooked, serious falls may result. Thus, the physical integrity of people is at risk. Also, the robots themselves may be harmed, causing an economic damage. In both cases, there may be a question of liability.

In the case of larger robots such as the K5 or the AnBot collisions may occur. Actually, a minor accident happened at the Stanford Shopping Center in 2016, in which a boy suffered some bruises [3]. K5 and AnBot are not only relatively large, but also quite heavy, which can be detrimental for people involved in a collision. In addition, they move quite speedily so that, should the occasion arise, two moving bodies clash. In addition to the surfaces of the robot, exposed parts such as buttons and tools can cause injury.

The potential solutions lie at different levels. First, one can orient oneself on the construction of motorized vehicles. They can usually draw attention to themselves through light and sound signals by using flasher and horn. One would have to automate the activation on the models mentioned. On pavements and in public places, the problem occurs that these signals would have to be used very often, which may result in a certain tolerance on the one hand, but on the other hand may represent a nuisance, especially if you face and hear several robots at the same time. It also could scare domestic and wild animals, which subsequently might avoid these areas or run away in affect and cause damage. With security and surveillance robots, a signal is not always the first choice, because the previously informed headquarters would probably like to watch an operation without drawing attention to the robot.

One might further force the robot to move very slowly with a cruise control of some kind or a brake system, which however neither eliminates it as a stumbling block nor sorts out the phenomenon of running and driving people. In addition, the interaction of sensors - cameras, radar, lidar, ultrasonic and infrared systems, etc. - and algorithms is to be designed in such a way as to make a stop or dodging occur as early as possible as well as target-oriented. Particularly while dodging, however, the danger of new collisions arises. Last but not least, there is the possibility of modelling the robot on approaches from social robotics by creating a soft shape around its shell or make it withdraw dangerous instruments and parts if necessary.

In addition to such technical and design approaches that come from the machine itself or are connected with it, stemming from its behavior and nature, some personal, organizational and space planning measures are needed. The robot can be remote-controlled in parts - as is intended for the parcel robot of some companies, for crossing streets [14] - and one can navigate it through less bustling areas, which, in turn, can be made dependent on the time of day and information about events.

Sharing of the Habitat

As made clear already, the service robots share with us our habitat. Today, many cities are already very complex, and pedestrians, bicyclists, car drivers and animals must constantly heed several moving and stationary objects and assess them. The robots increase this complexity. We have to dodge them or they have to dodge us - as already mentioned -, they fill up the roads and squares, and make passages narrower. In other words: Our habitat dwindles further, will be further restricted, filled with artifacts that we create, and the more there are of these, the tighter it will be for us all.

Of importance are not only the places, but also the resources. Robots need electricity, often produced by nuclear and coal-fired power plants. They need this power directly, we indirectly, and since we all need this power at the same time, we are in constant competition with each other. Alternative and independent energy supplies are rare. The Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot (EATR), a prototypical war robot, "feeds" on organic materials, which caused a controversy [8]. Apart from that, robots are produced from certain materials and substances that consume resources, though this plays rather an ecological and economical role, and hardly a role for their specific use.

It is difficult to compensate for the increase in number, space and energy demand of robots. One approach would be to make them smaller and lighter. In many cases, however, and for various reasons, service robots must have a certain extension and weight, or a certain stability. This is, on the one hand, due to their tasks like transporting food and parcels, on the other hand, because as artifacts themselves they move through artifacts (such as roads and buildings), which, in turn, have people (and possibly their pets and farm animals) as a benchmark. In this respect, neither a small nor a giant robot makes sense.

Another approach would be to roof pathways, and to create new areas in the cities to somewhat separate such machines and people, where it makes sense. Already, streets are covered with other streets, but this is very expensive and resource-intensive. Such double engagements in the double sense involve a new complexity, and, in addition to the extension, a restriction of opportunities as well.

A solution in relation to the resources would be to equip the robots (or the stations where they recharge) with a self-sufficient, sustainable, eco-friendly power supply such as solar cells. A robot with integrated power supply also has the advantage that it practically never fails, which is of the utmost importance for surveillance robots as well as for parcel robots. If they are to be effective, surveillance robots must be set in use in several versions; this is not necessary in parcel robots, except when they work together like in a relay race.

Communication and Interaction

Service robots, which move in the modern cities of the information societies must communicate and interact in multifaceted ways. They meet people of very different cultures, whose facial expression and gestures are varied, and who speak numerous languages. In addition, they meet birds, dogs and cats, which they not only have to dodge or which they scare, but with which they must also communicate and interact.

This subject has been partially addressed already in the first section of this chapter: Signals and sounds are used also for communication and interaction. In addition, natural language skills may be popular in software robots, and in hardware robots not uncommon. A transport robot could ask whether it has arrived at the right person, and ask for a linguistic or other verification. Information robots should provide structured and validated information. It is important that this information can be quickly and properly understood, and used.

Disciplines such as human-computer interaction, human-machine interaction and human-machine communication, as well as animal-machine interaction provide solutions to this set of issues. You can create the machines as adaptive systems that adjust themselves automatically to different people and languages. When a user addresses a robot in a particular language, it can answer in the same language, or enquire whether other languages are desired. It is also possible to identify the age of the person by face recognition and sizing, and communicate accordingly. The robot could also serve as an interpreter in common and public spaces, which would make it a bridge between humans and, in turn, would facilitate their understanding of each other.

Furthermore, the robot can also mimic animal noises, and by the use of signals, sounds, tools and blowing and wagging facilities attract or frighten away animals. The cooperation of machine ethics, animal ethics and animal welfare can produce systems that qualify and quantify the animals and are able to identify animal species [7], and ultimately help to improve animal welfare and reduce animal suffering.

Not to forget the direct powers of intervention, such as pressing an emergency button (which in the AnBot is already in use) and pressing a "kill switch", as suggested by a work group of the European Parliament [15]. The former allows the summons of human help, if there is danger ahead, the other to switch off the robot. Both are technical solutions, whereby the emergency button is related with organizational and personal measures. They both raise questions. What if the emergency button is being abused? What if a person without the necessary competence, who has neither the ability nor the permission to do so, presses the "kill switch"? Or, what if the machine would make the right decision and is then being thwarted?

Support and Replacement of People

A more fundamental phenomenon is that robots support people as well as replace them. Automatic and autonomous machines, as the prefix points out, do something themselves, independently, or of their own accord, and they do not necessarily need humans. These are, however, often required, when it comes to the input or output.

In the areas that are in the focus of our interest, a support or replacement has all sorts of implications. A parcel robot substitutes a postal worker when transporting; but does it substitute him or her also at the delivery, where so far have occurred social interactions, talks or a flirt? A surveillance robot supports the monitoring staff and replaces it under certain circumstances, but what happens if a suspect is to be stopped? Must the robot cooperate then peer to peer, with the monitoring personnel, with randomly present people?

These considerations lead to three main findings. Firstly, robots among us accept work from us. Thus, since these tasks are lost to us we are looking for new tasks, have to determine new ones, etc. Secondly, communication and interaction partially cease to exist or vary greatly. This topic was addressed in the previous section. Thirdly, new forms of cooperation are necessary. Partly, this subject as well has already been dealt with in the last section, since cooperation often goes hand in hand with communication.

In turn, the solutions relate to several levels. We can discuss this question in information, technology and business ethics, namely how far we will push the automation and autonomy, which tasks we intend to outsource and which we want to retain. This requires a definition of the properties and activities of machines and humans, and also a new definition of work practice and the division of labor. For the cooperation and communication with machines, new skills of machines and humans are required. The machines need to understand humans better, and vice versa.

In turn, approaches from machine ethics and social robotics can be pursued. Ultimately, machines and humans need to meet in their moral and social environment. They should behave towards each other in such ways that enable a good life and safe operation.

Data Collection and Data Analysis

Another problem has to do with data and information. Some of the robots are trimmed to recognize certain conspicuous issues, others have to find their way around in standard situations. In both cases, patterns are analyzed and transmittable images generated. This is important to improve the machines and increase their operating security. Some machines need to master emotion analysis and facial recognition. Overall, this creates a problem of data protection and informational autonomy in relation to the recorded humans, whose personal characteristics or behaviors are possibly verified and stored.

The special perspective of some service robots has also to be included in the considerations. Parcel robots may look under our skirts and between our legs [3]. They notice broken shoes, calves lined with varicose veins, and thighs rutted with cellulite. This is not tragic, but perhaps uncomfortable and embarrassing for us. Surveillance robots can be equipped with lowly located sensors, which creates a similar problem.

The solution approaches come among others from machine ethics, informatics, and AI. You can teach parcel robots not to record certain areas of the body or faces, and not to evaluate them. Such approaches were discussed in relation with photo drones [5]. Concerning surveillance robots, this is much more delicate, because they should in fact provide personal data - of a burglar or handbag robber - in case of need. But, here as well, the data can be encrypted to be decrypted only by an authorized person, or raw and application data can be distinguished, and areas of the body and body parts can be excluded.

It is important to take the perspective of information ethics and to think and act according to its terms. The informational autonomy, to name a central concept, is the possibility to access information by oneself and to look at one’s own personal data and, if necessary, make adaptions [4]. Social and political groups and entities need to refer repeatedly to this moral dimension, which is beyond the legal one. The informational self-defense - also a term of information ethics - arises from digital disobedience or represents an independent act in the heat of the moment, and is intended to safeguard the informal autonomy and the digital identity [4]. It needs to be discussed when to strike back against robots and how to protect oneself from them.

A Ban of Service Robots?

When it comes to the ideas of the economy, of science and politics, soon thousands of service robots will populate our cities. They become colleagues, friends, acquaintances, companions, competitors, threats. They support and replace us, they fight with us for space and energy.

This article has defined and systematized service robots that enter the common and public spaces, roll on paths, across places and occupy spaces, has outlined their application possibilities and explored selected problem areas. Solution proposals were made from the perspective of information ethics and of machine ethics.

For politics and legislation, but also for city planners, computer scientists and roboticists such considerations may be helpful. These are rather broad to reflect the entire spectrum. We now need to deepen individual issues and further develop individual solutions. Sometimes, a ban of robots in certain areas may be a tested method. It is important, however - and here as well further considerations are necessary -, to take into account beside the substantial risks also the significant opportunities.

References

1. Anderson, M., Anderson, S. L. eds.: Machine Ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)

2. Bendel, O.: Achtung, sie kommen! UnternehmerZeitung, 23 (2017) 4, 34-35

3. Bendel, O.: Mehr Unsicherheit mit Sicherheitsrobotern? SicherheitsForum, 6/2016, 18-20

4. Bendel, O.: 300 Keywords Informationsethik: Grundwissen aus Computer-, Netz- und Neue-Medien-Ethik sowie Maschinenethik. Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden (2016)

5. Bendel, O.: Einfache moralische Maschinen: Vom Design zur Konzeption. In: Barton, T.; Erdlenbruch, B.; Herrmann, F. et al. eds. Prozesse, Technologie, Anwendungen, Systeme und Management 2015. Tagungsband zur 28. AKWI-Jahrestagung vom 06.09.2015 bis 09.09.2015 an der Hochschule Luzern - Wirtschaft. mana-Buch, Heide, 171-180

6. Bendel, O.: Sollen Roboter uns pflegen? IT for Health, 01/2015, 29

7. Bendel, O.: Considerations about the Relationship between Animal and Machine Ethics. AI & SOCIETY, December 2013 ("online first" article on SpringerLink)

8. Bendel, O.: Die Rache der Nerds. UVK, Konstanz and München (2012)

9. Bendel, O.: Maschinenethik [1]. Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden (2012),.

10. Burgard, W., Stachniss, C.: Gestatten, Obelix. forschung 1/2013, 4-8

11. Coxworth, B.: "The Vespa of Robots" may follow you home. [2] New Atlas, 31 January 2017.

12. Hanser, K.: Dieses Personal zickt nicht rum und will kein Trinkgeld. [3] Die Welt, 9 March 2016.

13. Lill, F.: "Sprechen Sie deutlich!" [4] ZEIT ONLINE, 10 September 2015. 14. Maron, H. J.: Die gelben Postroboter kommen. [5], inside-it.ch, 23 August 2016. 15. Stark, J.: EU-Parlament diskutiert Roboter-Rechte. [6], com! professional, 17 January 2017.

URL dieses Artikels:
https://www.heise.de/-3754173

Links in diesem Artikel:
[1] http://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/Definition/maschinenethik.html
[2] http://newatlas.com/piaggio-gita/47646/
[3] https://www.welt.de/reise/deutschland/article153085621/Dieses-Personal-zickt-nicht-rum-und-will-kein-Trinkgeld.html
[4] http://www.zeit.de/2015/35/roboter-henn-na-hotel-japan-nagasaki
[5] http://www.inside-it.ch/articles/44765
[6] http://www.com-magazin.de/news/internet-dinge/eu-parlament-diskutiert-roboter-rechte-1188010.html

Copyright © 2017 Heise Medien