Panopticon spotted in the wild

[Pacioli]

They why aren't people bothered by non-robotic security cameras when they go to Wal-mart, the ATM, or the neighborhood gas station?

That's a good question. I know I am. Perhaps it's because they are innocuous, fixed unit devices. Perhaps it's because they were "sold" to us a long time ago as shoplifting deterrents, before AI, the interwebs, cloud storage of your underwear size. Maybe most people just don't take note of them. Don't know. Nevertheless, I think if you asked, most people would say that they don't like being watched.

A robot, or scanner, moving among us is a real "in your face" act. Maybe that makes it worse in my mind.

[Bergeron]

According to the article, the company who owns these things attempts to pursue felony charges for damaging them.

This particular bit stood out to me, though:

Even Darling, who believes that the way we treat robots mirrors our ideas about empathy and kindness, agrees the ethics aren’t always clear. “Even though it’s clearly wrong to punch a person, you get into ethical questions very quickly where it’s not always so clear what the answer is,” she says. “Is it OK to punch a person who’s trying to punch you? Is it OK to punch a Nazi?”

Yes, Kate, it is OK to punch a person trying to punch you. It's probably also OK to shoot them, as well.

Yes, Kate, it was OK to punch Nazis. In fact, it was OK to actually kill them in almost all of the various methods available to humanity at the time.

I wonder about how you get a job as a robot ethicist at MIT while being so fuzzy on the ethics of violence.

[BehindBlueI's]

That's a good question. I know I am. Perhaps it's because they are innocuous, fixed unit devices. Perhaps it's because they were "sold" to us a long time ago as shoplifting deterrents, before AI, the interwebs, cloud storage of your underwear size. Maybe most people just don't take note of them. Don't know. Nevertheless, I think if you asked, most people would say that they don't like being watched.

A robot, or scanner, moving among us is a real "in your face" act. Maybe that makes it worse in my mind.

I suspect most people would SAY that but most people don't actually actually MEAN it. Particularly as folks willingly invite "smart speakers" into their homes and put security cameras inside their own residences, which is a much greater intrusion then being watched in a public space.

I also suspect it's because the push that there's an expectation of privacy in public spaces is new. I've never expected to be invisible when out in public and would not consider someone watching me as "spying" until I was in a private area, say a bathroom or my own residence.

Robots are different because we anthropomorphize them and assign them some level of agency. Cameras and smart speakers are just things, even if intellectually we know there's a person on the other end. Level of agency matters. I doubt anyone throws a blanket over the aquarium if they are going to engage in "adult activities" with their spouse so the fish won't see but wouldn't want the dog in the room.

[Totem Polar]

They why aren't people bothered by non-robotic security cameras when they go to Wal-mart, the ATM, or the neighborhood gas station?

[Drang]

Second, I'm so glad I don't work at MIT. I'd be pissed they are paying someone to be a fucking 'robot ethicist'."

Anyone know if Joe Haldeman still teaches writing at MIT?

[peterb]

My immediate thought was, "First, you can't be an ethicist for non-sentient beings. Robots, even AI, have no self-awareness and therefore no ethics. Second, I'm so glad I don't work at MIT. I'd be pissed they are paying someone to be a fucking 'robot ethicist'."

I recall some heated discussions a few months ago about the “ethics” or “morality” of different programming strategies for self-driving cars. Do you maneuver in a way that may kill the passenger if it is the only way to avoid a bus? Do you hit one pedestrian if it is the only way to avoid a crowd?

They are decisions we expect “untrained” drivers to make in an instant, but folks seemed to be upset about actually discussing the options and having to make rational choices.

We are close to having “autonomous” vehicles capable of using “deadly force”(mass and velocity). Establishing the rules they will follow should involve more viewpoints than just code geeks.

[JDD]

Who uses the word panopticon? Ridiculous!

I found this gem entertaining,

My immediate thought was, "First, you can't be an ethicist for non-sentient beings. Robots, even AI, have no self-awareness and therefore no ethics. Second, I'm so glad I don't work at MIT. I'd be pissed they are paying someone to be a fucking 'robot ethicist'."

I suspect the ethics are for the people who are programing the robots.

If we have self driving cars, at some point the car is going to have to make the decision between crashing into a pedestrian (high chance of injuring them) or a bridge abutment (high chance of injuring the passenger). The ethicist can do the navel gazing necessary to advise people who are going to deal with applied trolley problems and things like that.

It will also come up with increasing frequency when we start getting more autonomous fighting systems. Programing use-of-force for a modern battlefield is going to be a nightmare.

[BehindBlueI's]

Maybe, but I suspect most of us here are old enough to remember when stores didn't have camera systems and also remember there was no uproar when they started going in that direction. I'd also suggest that pre-camera people were upset if they noticed an employee directly watching them throughout the store.

I think it's deeper then just logical privacy concerns and maybe a lizard brain function. Being watched can be a precursor to attack and that creates tension in the more primitive parts of the brain, we respond to that tension and being uncomfortable. Inanimate objects, like a shoebox with a lens on the front, don't trigger that same response because the primitive brain doesn't associate them with watching you. The shape of something, the appearance of having a face, etc. all affect how we instinctively react to something. Think of a pillow versus a teddy bear. Same basic item as far as components and construction, but I think we're all aware we don't react to them the same. Pillows never come to life in fiction, we don't keep our childhood pillows around for the attached memories or to give to our own children, etc. It's, IMO, very much the same with certain robots vs a traditional static security camera system.

[Totem Polar]

Maybe, but I suspect most of us here are old enough to remember when stores didn't have camera systems and also remember there was no uproar when they started going in that direction. I'd also suggest that pre-camera people were upset if they noticed an employee directly watching them throughout the store.

I dunno... I can’t remember a time when banks and jewelry stores didn’t have cameras, and I was born in ‘68. From there, it was a logical leap to extend camera use to lower-profile stores as the price on the tech dropped. I think the point where people started casting the stink eye on cameras is when they moved from monitoring specific areas (banks, federal buildings, etc) to monitoring the general public. It’s one thing to have a big ass camera in the upper corner of the Rolex store, and yet another to have them on every street corner. Nobody has to go into the Rolex store, and we have an expectation of monitoring in a courthouse. I suspect that this idea of monitoring the outside air really took off in the late 70s and 80s, and plenty of people (besides a prescient pre-war Orwell) were grousing about it then.

You think you've private lives
Think nothing of the kind
There is no true escape
I'm watching all the time
I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye

The British music scene was decrying the surveillance state before 1982, with that gem.

In addition to the ‘primitive mind’ tracking things that are bad for us (beady, foward-facing eyeballs mounted on the front of a head-shaped object, for instance, and I agree that you’re on to something right there), I also feel like it’s one thing to accept constant monitoring while engaged in activities of high value to society (engaging in banking, going to court, browsing rows of five-figure Rolexes) and another for accepting it while sitting on a park bench, let alone just going out the front door. JMO.

PS. METAL SUNDAY...

[RJ]

We are close to having “autonomous” vehicles capable of using “deadly force”(mass and velocity). Establishing the rules they will follow should involve more viewpoints than just code geeks.

I think pretty soon with self-driving cars, there’ll be a country song about a truck that left the cowboy on its own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk