Skip to main content

How do we teach robots right from wrong? Soon the problem won’t be hypothetical

Editor’s note: Digital Trends has partnered with WebVisions, the internationally recognized design, technology and user-experience conference, to help bring luminary Douglas Rushkoff to this year’s event in Portland, Oregon. As part of our partnership, we’re also pleased to feature select content from WebVisions’ insightful blog, Word. This week, contributor Mark Wyner wonders how we go about teaching artificial intelligence right from wrong. Enjoy!

Twitter has admitted that as many as 23 million (8.5 percent) of its user accounts are autonomous Twitterbots. Many are there to increase productivity, conduct research, or even have some fun. Yet many have been created with harmful intentions. In both cases, the bots have been known to behave with questionable ethics – maybe because they’re merely minor specimens of artificial intelligence (AI).

Humans are currently building far-more sophisticated machines which will face questions of ethics on monumental scales. Even in the mortality of human beings. So how do we make sure they make the right choices when the time comes?

Build it in or teach it

The key factor in successfully building autonomous machines that coincide symbiotically with human beings is ethics. And there are basically two ways to program ethics into machines:

First, you can hard code them into their operating systems. The concern here is that ethics are subjective. The ethics in the machine are contingent upon the ethics in its creator. But we humans do not always align in our morality. We fight wars over ethical differences. So as we build autonomous machines to be ethical, we’re building within the confines of our existing disparities.

robots-right-wrong-ethics-2
Image used with permission by copyright holder

Second, you can provide some guidelines, then allow the machine to learn its own ethics based on its own experiences. This passive approach leaves plenty of room for misinterpretations of morality, contingent upon which behaviors are observed. Consider the recent meltdown of Microsoft’s Twitter AI, Tay, who was tricked into tweeting racist slurs and promotion of genocide based on a false inference of accepted ethical normalcy.

A team at Georgia Tech is working on the latter, teaching cognitive-systems to learn how to behave in socially acceptable ways by reading stories. A reward system called Quixote is supposed to help cognitive systems identify protagonists in stories, which the machines use to align their own values with those of human beings. It’s unclear what methods Microsoft used with Tay. But if their techniques were preemptive, as with Georgia Tech’s learning system, we’re a long way from solidifying ethics in Artificial Intelligence.

Ethical paralysis

Now, all of this is based on the idea that a computer can even comprehend ethics. As Alan Winfield shows in his study Towards an Ethical Robot, when a computer encounters an ethical paradox, the result is unpredictable, often paralyzing. In his study, a cognitive robot (A-robot) was asked to save a “human” robot (H-robot) from peril. When the A-robot could save only one of two H-robots, it dithered and conceded in its own confusion, saving neither.

There is an ancient philosophical debate about whether ethics is a matter of reason or emotion. Among modern psychologists, there is a consensus that ethical decision making requires both rational and emotional judgments. As Professor Paul Thagard notes in a piece about this topic, “ethical judgments are often highly emotional, when people express their strong approval or disapproval of various acts. Whether they are also rational depends on whether the cognitive appraisal that is part of emotion is done well or badly.”

Decisions with consequences

So, if cognitive machines don’t have the capacity for ethics, who is responsible when they break the law? Currently, no one seems to know. Ryan Calo of the University of Washington School of Law notes, “robotics combines, for the first time, the promiscuity of data with the capacity to do physical harm; robotic systems accomplish tasks in ways that cannot be anticipated in advance; and robots increasingly blur the line between person and instrument.”

The process for legislation is arduously slow, while technology, on the other hand, makes exponential haste.

The crimes can be quite serious, too. Netherlands developer Jeffry van der Goot had to defend himself  — and his Twitterbot — when police knocked on his door, inquiring about a death threat sent from his Twitter account. Then there’s Random Darknet Shopper; a shopping bot with a weekly allowance of $100 in Bitcoin to make purchases on Darknet for an art exhibition. Swedish officials weren’t amused when it purchased ecstasy, which the artist put on display. (Though, in support for artistic expression they didn’t confiscate the drugs until the exhibition ended.)

In both of these cases, authorities did what they could within the law, but ultimately pardoned the human proprietors because they hadn’t explicitly or directly committed crimes. But how does that translate when a human being unleashes an AI with the intention of malice?

The ironic reality is that we are exploring ways we can govern our autonomous machines. And beyond our questionable ability to instill ethics into them, we are often bemused by their general behavior alone. When discussing the methods behind their neural networks, Google software engineer Alexander Mordvintsev revealed, “… even though these are very useful tools based on well-known mathematical methods, we actually understand surprisingly little of why certain models work and others don’t.”

Can we keep up?

All things considered, the process for legislation is arduously slow, while technology, on the other hand, makes exponential haste. As Vivek Wadhwa of Singularity University explains, “the laws can’t keep up because … laws are essentially codified ethics. That we develop a consensus as a society about what’s good and what’s bad and then it becomes what’s right and what’s wrong, and then it becomes what’s legal and what’s illegal. That’s the way the progression goes. On most of those technologies we haven’t decided what’s good or bad.”

If the law does catch up, we may be writing our own doom. All of that talk about robots taking over the world? Maybe they just jaywalk en masse until we imprison so much of our race that we become the minority in autonomous beings. Checkmate.

Mark Wyner
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Mark Wyner has been working as a creative professional and technologist for nearly 20 years, partnering with Fortune 100/500…
Toyota shifts gears: 15 New EVs and a million cars by 2027
Front three quarter view of the 2023 Toyota bZ4X.

After years of cautiously navigating the electric vehicle (EV) market, Toyota is finally ramping up its commitment to fully electric vehicles.
The Japanese automaker, which has long relied on hybrids, is now planning to develop about 15 fully electric models by 2027, up from five currently. These models will include vehicles under the Toyota and Lexus brands, with production expected to reach 1 million units annually by that year, according to a report from Nikkei.
This strategy marks a significant shift for Toyota, which has thus far remained conservative in its approach to electric cars. The company sold just 140,000 EVs globally in 2024—representing less than 2% of its total global sales. Despite this, Toyota is aiming for a much larger presence in the EV market, targeting approximately 35% of its global production to be electric by the end of the decade.
The Nikkei report suggests the company plans to diversify its production footprint beyond Japan and China and expanding into the U.S., Thailand, and Argentina. This would help mitigate the impact of President Donald Trump’s 25% tariffs on all car imports, as well as reduce delivery times. Toyota is also building a battery plant in North Carolina.
For now, Toyota has only two fully electric vehicles on the U.S. market: The bZ4X  and the Lexus RZ models. The Japanese automaker is expected to introduce new models like the bZ5X and a potential electric version of the popular Tacoma pickup.
Separately, Toyota and Honda, along with South Korea’s Hyundai, all announced on April 4 that they would not be raising prices, at least over the next couple of months, following the imposition of U.S. tariffs. According to a separate Nikkei report, Toyota’s North American division has told its suppliers that it will absorb the extra costs of parts imported from Mexico and Canada. Another 25% for automotive parts imported to the U.S. is slated to come into effect on May 3.

Read more
Tesla, Warner Bros. dodge some claims in ‘Blade Runner 2049’ lawsuit, copyright battle continues
Tesla Cybercab at night

Tesla and Warner Bros. scored a partial legal victory as a federal judge dismissed several claims in a lawsuit filed by Alcon Entertainment, a production company behind the 2017 sci-fi movie Blade Runner 2049, Reuters reports.
The lawsuit accused the two companies of using imagery from the film to promote Tesla’s autonomous Cybercab vehicle at an event hosted by Tesla CEO Elon Musk at Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) Studios in Hollywood in October of last year.
U.S. District Judge George Wu indicated he was inclined to dismiss Alcon’s allegations that Tesla and Warner Bros. violated trademark law, according to Reuters. Specifically, the judge said Musk only referenced the original Blade Runner movie at the event, and noted that Tesla and Alcon are not competitors.
"Tesla and Musk are looking to sell cars," Reuters quoted Wu as saying. "Plaintiff is plainly not in that line of business."
Wu also dismissed most of Alcon's claims against Warner Bros., the distributor of the Blade Runner franchise.
However, the judge allowed Alcon to continue its copyright infringement claims against Tesla for its alleged use of AI-generated images mimicking scenes from Blade Runner 2049 without permission.
Alcan says that just hours before the Cybercab event, it had turned down a request from Tesla and WBD to use “an icononic still image” from the movie.
In the lawsuit, Alcon explained its decision by saying that “any prudent brand considering any Tesla partnership has to take Musk’s massively amplified, highly politicized, capricious and arbitrary behavior, which sometimes veers into hate speech, into account.”
Alcon further said it did not want Blade Runner 2049 “to be affiliated with Musk, Tesla, or any Musk company, for all of these reasons.”
But according to Alcon, Tesla went ahead with feeding images from Blade Runner 2049 into an AI image generator to yield a still image that appeared on screen for 10 seconds during the Cybercab event. With the image featured in the background, Musk directly referenced Blade Runner.
Alcon also said that Musk’s reference to Blade Runner 2049 was not a coincidence as the movie features a “strikingly designed, artificially intelligent, fully autonomous car.”

Read more
Audi halts vehicle deliveries to the U.S. as it mulls impact of tariffs
2021 Audi Q5

If you’d been thinking of buying an Audi, now might be the time.  The German brand, owned by the Volkswagen Group, has announced it would halt shipments to the U.S. in the wake of President Donald Trump’s 25% tariffs on all imported vehicles.
Audi is currently holding cars that arrived after the tariffs took effect, on April 3, in U.S. ports. But it still has around 37,000 vehicles in its U.S. inventory, which should be able to meet demand for about two months, according to Reuters.
Automakers on average hold enough cars to meet U.S. demand for about three months, according to Cox Automotive.
Audi should be particularly affected by the tariffs: The Q5, its best-selling model in the U.S., is produced in Mexico, while other models, such as the A3, A4, and A6 are produced in Germany.
Holding shipments is obviously a temporary measure to buy time for Audi and parent company Volkswagen. If tariffs stay in place, vehicle prices would likely have to go up accordingly, unless some production is shifted to the U.S. Volkswagen already has a plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and is planning a new plant in South Carolina. That latter plant, however, isn’t expected to be operational until 2027 and is currently dedicated to building electric vehicles for VW’s Scout Motors brand.
Other global automakers have also taken drastic measures in response to Trump’s tariffs. Jaguar Land Rover on April 5 said it is pausing shipments of its its UK-made cars to the United States this month. The British sports-luxury vehicle maker noted that the U.S. market accounts for nearly a quarter of its global sales, led by the likes of Range Rover Sports, Defenders, and Jaguar F-PACE.
And on April 3, Nissan, the biggest Japanese vehicle exporter to the United States, announced it will stop taking new U.S. orders for two Mexican-built Infiniti SUVs, the QX50 and QX55.

Read more