Let’s start out by defining this because the first question a lot of people reading might ask, what in the heck is the Law of Robots? Is that a real thing? A real academic study?
Well, it is now. When one comes across the word “Law of Robots” they tend to think of Fender from Futurama or R2-D2 or something along those lines; something in our far flung future, but robots are around us today. This isn’t science fiction, this is something that we deal with all the time. The fact that they’ve gotten invisible in our everyday lives points to how mainstream they’ve become. Examples include surgical robots, self driving cars, weaponized drones, stock trading software etc. Computers, software and robots are running an ever larger part of human life, they’re doing it quietly and behind the scenes. The point of the law of robots is not only how we think about robotics, but also about how these machines now are becoming actors in their own right; not in our far flung future but in our present right here and right now, today.
My relative recently got a knee replaced by a “real human being.” I’ve been told that the next thing that needs replacement and will be replaced by, in-part, a robotic doctor, which is quite scary to think about. If it’s not a robotic doctor all in itself, there is a good chance that whatever doctor works on the knee will be augmented in some significant way by machines; either robotic or augmentative, but there’s a really strong chance that one will have an assisted doctor and that machines will be part of that process, whether you like it or not. One question that we might face is, what would the rules be for the machines the doctors will use? Will it be the same as the rules for the doctors, or should it be something different?
Do we need a Law of Robots?
Another question that arises is, do we need new laws for every new technology under the sun? Do we even need a law of robots? During the inception of the internet, there was a great conference at the University of Chicago in 1996. One of the first conference on cyber laws, scholars from around the globe got together to talk about this new thing called the ‘internet’ and how law might impact it. The key note for the first day was Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, who got in front of this room full of scholars and internet enthusiasts and poured a huge bucket of cold water on all of them and said:
“I’m so glad that we don’t have a law of cyber space class at the University of Chicago, we don’t need a new law of for every new thing that comes around. There was no such thing as the law of the horse, when we started riding horses around we just applied existing law to new facts and when it comes to the internet we are going to do exactly the same thing. Every time we try to regulate something new, we mess it up. There is no such thing as cyber law and whatever you do, don’t try to make one”[1]
His point was that we don’t need a law of the horse, law of cyber space, law of robots etc. This is the whole idea of common law. We have established rules of tort, contract or criminal law that we merely apply to new facts.
Lessons from Cyber Space and Exceptionalism in Robots
The counter point to Judge Easterbrook was from a young professor named Larry Lessig, who made the case for an individual law of cyber space. Professor Lessig said “There are facets of cyber laws that are different from the world and so significantly different that we need new laws to cover them.”[2]
For example, when you’re in the “real world” and try to buy alcohol, someone can ask you for your ID, they can look you in the eye and tell how old you are. When you try buying things off the internet, there is no way of knowing who’s on the other side. It could be a dog, you never know. What professor Lessig is trying to say is that we need a set of laws that cover these differences. This became known as “Internet exceptionalism”[3]; applying old laws will not result in preferred outcomes, thus new laws are required.
We should use the beginning of cyber law to teach ourselves about what the beginning of the law of robots might look like. The central question has to be whether there is true exceptionalism in robots; are they so different that we need new laws or can we routinely apply existing common law to new facts. I think that the answer is monolithic, it depends. Sometimes you do need a separate law of robots because they are different, our expectations change so much with the introduction of new technology. Sometimes you can, routinely apply existing common law or statutory law which works well for robots. It’s a fun intellectual exercise. The bigger question, how do we regulate things that are new? Robots are a great example of this because there are so many new applications of them right now. Are robots exceptional? If we can answer this question well, we should be able to answer it again for whatever comes after robots.
Science Fiction and Extrapolation
Science fiction plays a big role in answering this question. It helps imagine a future world and some of it’s implications. We can answer the question for robots that are around today, but one must indulge in extrapolation. If we set the rules today for a toy helicopter that has a camera bezel underneath, what are the implications for that when the toy helicopter can act on it’s own; when it can decide for itself who it will take pictures of when it can be networked with a team of other such toy helicopters. We cannot just decide in law of robots how to regulate what exists right now, we have to think forward as well. The rules have to be general enough to deal with what is going to happen 5, 10 or 20 years from now.
After laying groundwork for exceptionalism, we should look at individual technologies in the context of some sort of area of law. Torts dealing with issues on self driving cars or in contracts, under what circumstances might a machine be able to enter into a contract on our behalf. Could we turn a bot lose on Amazon and tell it to buy a MacBook Pro for less than 1 lakh rupees, if found. What happens if the robot buys 21 of them, who will be liable?
Laws Today
Most of our laws today assume that the acts are done by people. For example, our tort system is based on the fact that if someone acts negligently, they make a mistake and are responsible for the consequences of their actions. One place where robotics changes that equation is self driving cars. A good example of this is when there is about to be an accident, every individual self driving car is acting independently and making fully rational, completely accurate and responsible decisions. It is acting exactly the way it was programmed to and each independent decision is 100% right and non negligent, but there will be an accident anyway. We now have these kinds of ‘machine actors’ where none of the actors make a mistake, but there is going to be a harm suffered anyway. How do we compensate the victim of that harm?
Self driving Car Dilemma
There’s about to be an automobile accident involving a pedestrian, a driver of an automobile and a school bus full of kids. In that instant a self driving car has to make a decision since there will inevitably be an accident. Whose life is going to be compromised? Should the car be programmed to protect its driver? Should the car be programmed to save the most lives? Should it be programmed to save the most valuable lives? Maybe because children have longer lives ahead, we want to be able to preserve them. Maybe it should save the lives of the person who clicks the most ads on google. No one knows what the answer should be, it’s a matter of law that we figure it out.
Drones and Privacy
Today if you’re a celebrity, you have a paparazzi problem. There are people waiting at the red carpet, at the restaurant, at your beach vacation to take pictures of you. The pictures can be very valuable so there are photographers seemingly everywhere. They’re limited only by their ability to be where they can but drones eliminate that. You can put eyes in the sky just about everywhere. As it becomes less expensive, it is not difficult to put a lot of drones in the sky. Just imagine the clouds of drones outside of Beyonce and Jay-Z’s house, what recourse do they have?
There might be laws today on matters like trespassing, you might not be able to fly your drone on someone else’s property. However, that’s just a limitation of space. As soon as the cameras become better you won’t need to fly it on their property, you will be able to fly it high enough so that it’s not considered as trespassing and get exactly the same pictures.
[1] Easterbrook, Frank H. (1996). “Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse”.
[2] Lawrence Lessig. (1996). “The Path of Cyberlaw”.
[3] Henry H. Perritt Jr., Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, 32 CONN. L. REV. 1061 (2000).
-Shashwat Ashiya
Jury's Out 