Robotics and Legal Responsibility

With robotic devices increasingly prevalent in 'real life', and the prospect of ever more autonomous robots, there is a need for legislation to be updated to reflect the changing conditions. An article I read on Wired a few days ago reminded of an EU project that started last year: RoboLaw, which has the aim of exploring how emerging robotics technologies influence and are affected by the law (see also this, which I've just come across). This issue is brought into sharper focus in the case of something going wrong, where the question of responsibility arises. For instance, there's been a lot going around in recent months on the autonomous car efforts of Google and others. If there were to be a crash, who would take the blame? Would it be the manufacturer in the obvious absence of driver error, or perhaps those responsible for road/signalling maintenance? Indeed, would the technically possible autonomy be scaled back to maintain direct human oversight in order to mitigate the potential legal minefield? While there have been some legislative attempts to address this, there clearly is a way to go.

Individual researchers actually working on the supporting technologies have increasingly considered the implications, and potential implications, of their own field of research, typically focusing on the ethics involved in the (proposed) applications. Indeed, a couple of years ago now, I wrote something on the consequences of my ongoing work on memory in the context of human-robot interaction, though my effort was more directed at the possible legal implications of memory system technologies than ethics. The paper considered the implications of new computational means of providing the function of memory (specifically the use of sub-symbolic networks). It specifically proposed that as a consequence of the details of the technologies potentially used, current privacy legislation may not be suitable to account for new generations of autonomous social robots.

In my view, this is a small example of a wider need to consider the actual technologies in (proposed) use when considering legislative requirements - hence a need for the scientific/engineering community to engage with the legislative process (and therefore vice versa). However, in order for this to be effected, I feel that it would be beneficial to have common perspective or approach on the part of the researchers, which even if not unified is at least coherent. With one of the main deliverables of the project intended to be a white paper recommending regulatory guidelines to European legislators, this project has the potential to help provide this.

Review of "How to Build a Bionic Man"

This was a Channel 4 documentary on a week or two ago (I believe it's still viewable for those based in the U.K.) - I wasn't going to write a review of it at first. But then today, I noticed that there was a review of it on  the IEEE Robotics and Automation blog.

My first opinions of the documentary were unrelentingly poor. As a programme as a whole, I thought it was awful (the mostly inane voice-over commentary didn't help) - the thread that supposedly holds this together is the goal "...to create the worlds first bionic man, that can get off the slab and walk among us" (approx 1:10 minutes in). In terms of robotics it was dire: misleading, decidedly not state of the art, and poorly executed (as is typical for programmes such as this, it both over and understates the current state-of-the-art in robotics). As for 'building a bionic man', it was rather pathetic, an excuse to get in the dodgy sci-fi to make it more 'popular', and ending up with sensationalist nonsense. I can well imagine a director throughout in the background shouting "ham it up for the camera!" rather a lot...

However, the positive I did draw out of it (and this is what the IEEE blog post reminded me of) was that as a commentary on synthetic body parts, there is much of interest. The overview of the technologies both available and under development for the replacement of a whole host of limbs (in the news again recently) and internal organs was genuinely interesting, and quite well done. I thought the synthetic heart was particularly striking for instance.

The role of Bertolt Meyer was to add the personal touch to the tech-talk. For this, apart from the seemingly over-egged reaction to seeing a copy of his face on the resulting machine and the bit where he is pretending to talk to a plastic skull (though for all I know these were genuine reactions...), he was an ideal foil, being the user (possibly not the right phrase here) of a prosthetic hand himself. The snippets of interviews with the developers of the respective protheses were informative and realistic (i.e. didn't seem to be creatively edited in a way that detracted from the real technological advances made by focusing on the trivial or controversial).

It's a shame that the programme seems so poorly executed (and it is the programme I have a problem with), as there's lots of really great stuff that's been put together that doesn't, in my view, get the credit and clarity it deserves. And I can't imagine that the guys at Shadow Robot are particularly enamored at being portrayed as the stereotypical mad scientist loons confined to a basement, as they do genuinely great work (their hand is really quite impressive, and being used in a number of research endeavors around the world).

Sorry for somewhat rant-ish nature of that - I was possibly a little harsh in places, but as may be apparent, I don't think much of this documentary. I think that it mixes concepts from robotics, artificial intelligence and prosthetics research in a way that actually detracts from each, and is done from the perspective of entertainment under the guise of being informative.

The work of von Foerster: summary of a summary

The academic work of Heinz von Foerster was, and remains, highly influential in a number of disciplines, namely due to the pervasive implications of his distinction between first and second order cybernetics (and its antecedent ideas). Where first order cybernetics may be simply described as the study of feedback systems by observation, second-order cybernetics extends this observation of a system to incorporate the observer itself: it is reflexive in that the observation of the feedback system is itself a feedback system to be explained. While I am familiar with this concept, I am not particularly familiar with the body of work produced by von Foerster to instantiate this concept, although I have encountered numerous references to him, particularly when the subject is related to enactivism.

In 2003, Bernard Scott republished a summary of von Foersters' work which he originally published in 1979. The original paper was published just a few years after the official retirement of von Foerster, who apparently (as many an academic has before and since) continued his work for many subsequent years. It serves as a summary of the breadth of work and its contribution, and was republished partly in recognition of the continuing, and expanding, influence it exerts. This post is a very brief summary of this summary paper.

In general terms, von Foerster views on computation and cognition seem to be inherently integrated, holistic, proposing dynamic interactions between the micro, the macro and the global. This view thus contrasts with functional models of cognitive processes which in their nature, can only be static snapshots of the dynamic interactions at play: cf autopoietic theory that extends this notion with the principles of self-reconstitution and organisational closure. Particularly, he emphasises the necessity of considering perception, cognition and memory as indivisible aspects of a complete integrated cognitive system, cf enactivism.

With this consideration as a consistent thread, four primary phases in the development of von Foersters' research are identified. Firstly is his consideration of large molecules as the basis for biological computation, rather than the prevailing focus on neural networks, and that 'forms' of computation underlie all computational systems. Secondly is the exploration of self-organisation, and the reconciliation of organisation with the potential paradox of self-reference. In this sense, a system that increases in order (organisation) requires that its observer adapts its frame-of-reference to incorporate this: if this were not required of the observer, then the system can not be regarded as self-organising. The resulting infinite recursion provides an account of the conditions necessary for social communication and interaction: a consequence of the second order cybernetics. Thirdly is a focus on the nature of memory as being key to understanding cognition and consciousness. Returning to the notion of holistic cognition described above, this is in contrast to the perspective of memory as a static storage mechanism which was prevalent among behaviourist psychologists, and still remains prevalent in the work of designers of synthetic cognitive models and architectures (the countering of which is a key theme of my own research). The fourth and final identified phase (of the original 1979 paper that is) is the formalisation of the concept of self-referential systems and analysis as recursive computation, and the extension of this to apply also to the observer.

The threads of self reference and a holistic perspective have, as noted above, had a wide influence, and continue to do so. I did not realise before that Maturana and Varela's well known formulation of autopoiesis was done at the lab that von Foerster led (the Biological Computing Laboratory, University of Illinois). The relationship is of course clear now that I know about it (!): autopoiesis builds upon the self-reference and holism with self-reconstitution and organisational closure to form a fully reflexive theory. Similarly, enactivism seems to owe much to von Foersters' influence, with its integrated consideration of agent and environment, embodiment and cognition - a theme that has become increasing prevalent in recent years among those working on cognitive robotics with a more theoretical perspective - extending to the consideration of social behaviour. In all, the principle of second-order cybernetics and the theoretical perspectives upon which it is based remain important in the consideration of cognition and human behaviour despite its seemingly abstract theoretical nature, and Heinz von Foerster played a rather prominent role in providing its underpinnings.

Some of the 'buzzwords' raised in the summary of von Foersters' research which carry through as such today (among others - and I use the term buzzwords without any pejorative intent, merely as a 'note-to-self'):
- second order cybernetics
- self-organisation
- the holistic nature of cognition (developed as enactivism)

Paper reference:
Scott, B. (2003), "Heinz von Foerster - an appreciation (revisited)", Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 10(3/4), pp137-149

Uncertainty in Science

Just came across an interesting article on Wired: Science today. Written by Stuart Firenstein, a biological scientist and active in the public understanding of science. It's on how uncertainty and doubt are actually good things, fundamental drivers of the scientific method; and not something to be brushed under the carpet or made out to indicate complete certainty or ignorance as it frequently is by politicians and activists on all sides of a politically charge argument, or jumped on by the media (e.g. the MMR jab fiasco a few years ago) .

Taking the hot topic (hehe...) of of global warming as an example, Firenstein notes that the lack of clear-cut, unambiguous answers isn't an indication that science cannot provide anything of utility in the debate, and should not be discarded as a result: " Revision is a victory in science, and that is precisely what makes it so powerful." . If science is the search for knowledge, then what is often overlooked is that newly acquired knowledge is a means for forming and framing new questions; each step is just that, and not a certain end in itself.

A little extract:
"We live in a complex world that depends on sophisticated scientific knowledge. That knowledge isn’t perfect and we must learn to abide by some ignorance and appreciate that while science is not complete it remains the single best method humans have ever devised for empirically understanding the way things work."
From http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/firestein-science-doubt/