Contrary to popular belief, the law is faster than any technological development.

If a time machine was invented tomorrow and time travel became reality, every aspect of the machine would already be regulated before news of the device could be shared with the world. If the first time traveller did not come back from his or her trip to the past, that person’s spouse could, under existing legal frameworks, sue the inventors of the time machine and claim them liable for the accident.

Such a claim would subsequently be filed in a court somewhere in the world, and a judge would have to determine whether a rule of negligence or instead an objective standard of liability applies, if a valid contract was entered into between the traveller and the inventors of the machine, and whether the rules governing travel across space also apply to travel across time. Some people would deem the judge’s conclusions correct, and others would deem them wrong, but in any case the decision would still be based on some law and some form of legal reasoning, since the only unacceptable answer by a judge is non liquet.

Given that robotics are already regulated, and that any judge’s decisions on their use will produce incentives to future parties that find themselves in the same conditions, as lawmakers we must shift our question from whether we should regulate to how regulation can most fruitfully be structured.

Most current robotic applications could be considered as “products”, and pursuant to the European Defective Product directive or the US Restatement Third of Torts, could be straightforwardly addressed as such. While the consequences of applying those rules may in some cases lead to reasonable results and thus appear uncontroversial, in other cases they may be problematic, and indeed produce a technology chilling effect (e.g.: in the cases of driverless vehicles and robotic prostheses).

In the problematic cases, ad-hoc regulation may prove reasonable, necessary, and ultimately essential for the correct development of robotic technologies. Precisely because of that, opponents of robotic development would often be better served by legislative inertia rather than intervention. By avoiding the adoption of new rules, the negative incentives triggered by existing regulation would in fact deter the development of those applications.

While product liability rules are normally intended as a tool to incentivize high standards of safety in the design of products, in some cases no actual positive effect is achieved. For instance, after a liability exemption was introduced in the United States shielding the producers of commercial aircrafts from litigation (GARA), the number of accidents did not increase.

For these very reasons, sceptical technologists, engineers and roboticists may come to believe that a thoughtful legislative environment is essential to their work , their research and their business. When adequately pondered and rationally applied, regulation is therefor not an evil, but a useful tool.

How to regulate: The RoboLaw approach

Financed by the European Commission within FP7, the RoboLaw Project adopted a new approach to the problem of how to regulate robotics that is distinctly different from previous methodologies.

Firstly, the term “robot” is not a technical term from either an engineering or a legal perspective, but is derived from science fiction. As such, the RoboLaw project takes the position that there is no purpose in trying to develop an all-encompassing definition of the term “robot” . Rather than attempting to identify a common trait among such varied applications as robotic prostheses, driverless vehicles, softbots, industrial robots, robot companions, and automated vacuum cleaners, the RoboLaw project attempts to examine the peculiarities of each and point out differences between them.

For the purpose of examining the ethical, legal and social implications of robotics, this implies renouncing the idea of developing a uniform solution, a code or set of rules for robots as a single category. RoboLaw did not attempt to further elaborate, substitute, or overcome the laws of robots as Asimov thought of them.

Instead, the RoboLaw project determined that the best approach was to undertake a case-by-case analysis, addressing single kinds – or classes – of applications, pointing out the technical peculiarities of each, and through that, identifying both the ethical and legal implications that the emergence and diffusion of a similar technology may give raise to. Based on these considerations, the RoboLaw guidelines address four different application areas: driverless vehicles, robotic prostheses (and exoskeletons), surgical robots, and robot companions.

Each chapter, devoted to one single kind of device, starts with a technological analysis (conducted by engineers) that summarises the essential aspects of the technology, clarifies how it functions, and points out the most relevant challenges being faced for its advancement. Then, applying existing ethical approaches and theories, the issues are identified and discussed, and policy considerations provided.  Finally, a legal analysis considers applicable rules, determines if the incentives provided are desirable, and offers alternatives where needed.

The chapters then formulate recommendations that a legislator could use to enact ad-hoc rules for the specific robot addressed.

Which technologies to choose

In choosing which robotic technologies to address, RoboLaw took into account the novelty of the application, its possible societal impact, and its relevance.

Three of the applications considered by RoboLaw – robotic prosthetics/exoskeletons, surgical robots and robot companions – fall under the area of healthcare and, according to a recent study by McKinsey, are among the robotics technologies that show the most promise in terms of their ability to improve the quality of life of the great numbers of people.

The fourth – driverless vehicles – could represent a ground-breaking innovation, reduce the number of fatal road accidents, and eventually reshape the concept of transportation, traffic and the way our cities are designed and function.

Because the analysis required a good understanding of the technologies in question, we also considered the specific competencies of the engineers in our research group. As such, several relevant devices were left out, including drones, which are certain to modify many aspects of our future lives, and military robots with their many complex political implications.

Nonetheless, RoboLaw’s methodology can be applied to any robotic device, and should the project receive further funding, other technologies will most certainly be studied with this approach.

When and how to intervene: A functional approach 

The RoboLaw project adopted a functional perspective for deciding when and how to intervene.

It is not a robot’s intrinsic technical quality or characteristic alone that calls for regulation , and the ability of the robot to operate autonomously, and even its ability to learn and adapt its functioning, do not per se suffice in justifying a change in perspective.

Even a robot that can perform complex tasks without human supervision and take decisions towards that end may still not be deemed an agent in a philosophical sense, let alone a legal one. The robot is still an object, a product, a device, not bearing rights but meant to be used. What would justify a shift on a purely ontological basis (thus forcing us to consider the robot as a being provided with rights and duties) is what Gutman, Rathgeber and Syed call ‘strong autonomy’ – namely the ability to decide for one’s self and set one’s own goals. However, at present this belongs to the realm of science fiction, and it can be argued that this is not the direction we desire to take with robots in any case: we want robots to ease our lives, and therefore to do what we decide they should be doing. Should they be free to decide if, how and when to perform what we ask according to their own taste and preferences, then the purpose of developing robotic technologies would be defeated.

If society is to favour or pose some limits to technological development, then the technical aspects of the individual robotic device need to be taken into account, together with other elements, in order to decide when to regulate and in which direction. The market structure, size and condition (which may lead to market failures on one hand, and constitutional principles and fundamental rights on the other hand), do have a bearing in this respect.

In the case of robotic prostheses, which certainly qualify as products, the application of existing rules would most likely discourage their development. Considering the costs associated with research, and the limited market of potential users (at least in the early stages of product development), a producer may decide to never develop a technology in the first place if he is held strictly liable for all damages a prosthesis might cause.

Nonetheless, given the improvement in quality of life such technology could offer amputees, a policy argument could be made to conceive a better liability system where compensation is granted to the victim and the production of safe devices is ensured without holding the researchers and producer liable under all circumstances. Moreover, some legal grounds could be found to actually justify favouring their development (e.g.: art. 4 of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities).

Adopting a functional perspective therefore entails analysing the laws that are currently applicable in light of the technological peculiarities and challenges of the device in order to determine the effect that they would produce, the incentives they trigger, and finally, to elaborate a superior solution to the case. The direction to be favoured is determined through the complex weighing of benefits and risks the device would bring about, pursuant to existing principles and rights, in particular as emerging from constitutions and other fundamental rights declarations.

Some examples

To summarize some of the most relevant considerations that are drawn by the guidelines, we could say that definitions are a very relevant issue. Unless driverless vehicles are defined and such definitions used to modify street codes, such devices won’t be allowed to circulate.

Liability rules in many cases could provide a large and material obstacle to the development of desirable applications. Nonetheless, the preferred solutions are technology-specific, and take into account technical peculiarities as well as market structures. For instance, while a large market of users might suggest that a compulsory insurance system requiring owners of driverless vehicles to insure themselves for damages to third parties is sufficient, it does not follow that the same rule could be successfully used with prosthesis or robot companions. The initially more limited market for prostheses, and the potentially very high and uncertain costs existing liability rules could give rise to, would probably discourage private insurance companies from offering such contracts. In the case of robot companions, some more effective solutions could be thought of, including the attribution of legal personhood, similarly to what is done today with corporations.

Since liability pursues safety together with compensation, in some cases the proved inefficacy of existing product liability rules may call for reform. The two issues may be addressed separately: the pursuit of standardization could prove the best approach for the safety, while the adoption of automatic compensation mechanisms (no-fault plans) could ensure victims appropriate compensation.

There are several standardization bodies both at an international and European level (e.g.: respectively International Standard Organization and the European Standard Organizations). Their role should be implemented, and specific authorities should eventually be established with the purpose of determining high safety standards that are narrow enough to be tailored to specific applications – ones that producers can actually conform to. If one takes the current European directives regulating the EC marking, one easily sees that they have too broad a scope. For example, the medical device directive is applicable to anything ranging from a surgical glove to an exoskeleton.

Standardization may also benefit the field of professions that make use of robotic applications, such as surgeons. Requiring doctors to complete specific training in order to obtain a licence to use a specific kind of surgical robot may at once increase the level of performance, reduce accidents and subsequent lawsuits, and encourage the diffusion of such novel techniques.

Can RoboLaw’s guidelines be used outside Europe?  

Though the guidelines were developed for the European Commission and address the European legal system, they could be easily transposed to other systems. The problems emerging robotic technologies give rise to vary little from country to country, and so the solutions proposed by RoboLaw could be somewhat similar. Considering that the main aim of the guidelines is to provide narrow tailored recommendations suggesting the legislators how they shall intervene, such results could be applied – with some necessary adaptation – far beyond European borders.

Moreover, even if the solutions were criticized – and we expect them to be in some cases – they do provide a starting point for a technical debate in legal and philosophical terms around specific solutions to precisely defined problems, which itself is a novel outcome that we truly hope to encourage.

More info

RoboLaw website
BBC Interview
RoboLaw paper presented to the EU Parliament
Robotics Business Review Podcast with Ryan Calo

All of these groups and their activities, plus DARPA’s initiatives, are making inroads (albeit slowly) into government planning and funding, and any attempt to go it alone is, to me, a wasted opportunity for the whole robotics community.

Many (perhaps most) of the media stories about robotics – except from a very few news and robotics portal sites – are blown out of proportion. They thereby stoke speculation and foster feelings of cynicism that the stories are hype and not news. Consequently for those of us involved with robotics “news”, it’s important to not contribute to that disinterest and hype with headlines and stories that inflate reality or expectations.

Calo’s whitepaper received a goodly amount of attention in the media, and while it did not in any way contribute to the hype itself, unfortunately some of the stories written about it in the news already have. Consider these recent headlines:

US needs a new robotics agency or the machine overloads will win … or something

… or …

Robot car: Hit the shopping cart or the stroller? Who (or what) will make this decision?

An interesting chart from Google Trends lends credence to the thesis that robotics is more media hype than of actual interest. What appears to be of interest is robots themselves – mostly in movies and videos, and the threat of rampant AI – which is often at the core of sci-fi thrillers. The robotics industry is low man on the totem pole. Naturally this is all my spin on the chart below:

Robotics is just a dull blue flat line.

But returning to the question of whether robotics should be regulated, I think there are multiple questions at issue. For example:

• Does any country have a national policy regarding robotics?
  • Korea, China, Japan and the EU do have such plans.
    • Are they comprehensive?
    • Do they regulate and/or stimulate?
    • What’s their purpose?
• If the US were to have a national policy regarding robotics, what would it cover, what would be the major premises, the strategic purpose, and how would it be administered?
  • Laws, safety regulations, insurance, national defense, strategic goals, etc.
• Does America already have an implicit policy regarding robotics that could be aided by strategic governmental influence, or converting that implicit policy into a national policy?
  • Is this what is happening already with the help of existing organizations such as the ones I mentioned above but that were left out of Calo’s article?

Further, one headline that seems especially appropriate to this discussion is this one: “Future of Robotics Debate Stumbles Over Question: What Is a Robot?“. The story, in eWeek, references the Brookings article, but points out that the analysts who were delivering the results of their studies on the Future of Civilian Robotics have yet to agree on what actually constitutes robotics.

The question of “What is a robot?” should be added to the list of questions above, as it is intrinsically linked to the issue of regulation: you cannot regulate something that you have not defined regardless whether it’s a moving target or not. As a community of robotics experts, we’ve been avoiding this particular subject, and I for one would like to see it tackled.

Ryan Calo’s recent report for the Brookings Institute, “The Case for a Federal Robotics Commission”, calls for a central body to address the issue of lack of competent and timely policy guidance in robotics. For example, the US risks falling far behind other countries in the commercial UAV field due to the failure of the FAA to produce regulations governing drones. Calo points out the big gap between policy set at the research level ie. OSTP and at the commercial application end of the scale ie. FAA.

However, with robotics being a technology applicable in almost every domain, there will always need to be multiple governing bodies. One central agency is insufficient. Perhaps the answer lies in central information points, like the Brookings Institute, or Robohub, which provides a bridge between robotics researchers and the ‘rest of the world’. Informed discussion is at the heart of democracy and in a complex technical world, scientists, social scientists and science communicators must lead the debate.

I suggest that our current robotics policy agenda needs to be reformed and better informed . This article provides a review of some recent policy reports and considers the changing shape of 21st century scientific debate. In conclusion, I make several recommendations for change:

1. The creation of a global robotics policy think tank.
2. That the CTO of USA and the global equivalents make robotics a key strategy discussion.
3. That a US Robotics Commission is created – while robotics is an emerging field – to implement a cross disciplinary understanding of this technological innovation and its impacts at all levels of society.
4. That funding bodies make grants available for cross disciplinary organizations engaged in creating a platform for informed debate on emerging technologies.

The Pew Report and the problem with popular opinion

Much of today’s information comes via the media and popular opinion, from policy, analysis or government groups that are just plain out of touch, or unable to absorb or use information across disciplines. In the worst cases a feedback loop is created, of bad opinions being repeated until they are accepted as truth. Recent reports from the Brookings Institute and the Pew Research Center demonstrate both the good and the bad of current policy debates.

The recent widely reported Pew Research Center Report on “AI, Robotics and the Future of Jobs” highlights the ridiculousness of the situation. The report canvassed more than 12,000 experts sourced from previous reports, targeted list serves and subscribers to Pew’s research, who are largely professional technology strategists. 8 broad questions were presented, covering various technology trends. 1,896 experts and members of the interested public responded to the question on AI and robotics.

The problem is that very few of the respondents have more than a glancing knowledge of robotics. To anyone in robotics, the absence of people with expertise in robotics and AI is glaringly obvious. While there are certainly insightful people and opinions in the report, the net weight of this report is questionable, particularly as findings are reduced to executive summary level comments such as:

“Half of these experts (48%) envision a future in which robots and digital agents have displaced significant numbers of both blue- and white-collar workers – with many expressing concern that this will lead to vast increases in income inequality, masses of people who are effectively unemployable, and breakdowns in the social order.”

These findings are simply popular opinion without basis in fact. However, the Pew Research Center is well respected and considered relevant. The center is a non-partisan organization which provides all findings freely “to inform the public, the press and policy makers”, not just on the internet and future of technology, but on religion, science, health, even the impact of the World Cup.

How do you find the right sort of information to inform policy and public opinion about robotics?  How do you strike a balance between understanding technology and understanding the social implications of technology developments?

Improving the quality of public policy through good design

Papers like Heather Knight’s “How Humans Respond to Robots” or Ryan Calo’s “The Case for a Federal Robotics Commission” for the Brookings Institute series on “The Future of Civilian Robotics”, and organizations like Robohub and the Robots Association, are good examples of initiatives that improve public policy debate. At one end of the spectrum, an established policy organization is sourcing from established robotics experts. At the other end, a peer group of robotics experts is providing open access to the latest research and opinions within robotics and AI, including exploring ethical and economic issues.

Heather Knight’s report “How Humans Respond to Robots: Building Public Policy through Good Design” for the Brookings Institute is a good example of getting it right. The Brookings Institute is one of the oldest and most influential think tanks in the world, founded in Washington D.C. in 1916. The Brookings Institute is non-partisan and generally regarded as centrist in agenda. Although based in the US, the institute has global coverage and attracts funding from both philanthropic and government sources including, the govts of the US, UK, Japan, and China. It is the most frequently cited think tank in the world.

Heather Knight is conducting doctoral research at CMU’s Robotics Institute in human-robot interaction. She has worked at NASA JPL and Aldebaran Robotics, she cofounded the Robot Film Festival and she is an alumnus of the Personal Robots Group at MIT. She has degrees in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science and Mechanical Engineering. Here you have a person well anchored in robotics with a broad grasp of the issues, who has prepared an overview on social robotics and robot/society interaction. This report is a great example of public policy through good design, if it does indeed makes its way into the hands of people who could use it.

As Knight explains, “Human cultural response to robots has policy implications. Policy affects what we will and will not let robots do. It affects where we insist on human primacy and what sort of decisions we will delegate to machines.”  Automation, AI and robotics is entering the world of human-robot collaboration and we need to support and complement the full spectrum of human objectives.

Knight’s goal was not to be specific about policy but rather to sketch out the range of choices we currently face in robotics design and how they will affect future policy questions, and she provides many anecdotes and examples, where thinking about “smart social design now, may help us navigate public policy considerations in the future.”

Summary: “How Humans Respond to Robots”

Firstly, people require very little prompting to treat machines or personas as having agency. Film animators have long understood just how simple it is to turn squiggles on the screen into expressive characters in our minds and eyes. We are neurologically coded to follow motion and to interpret even objects as having social or intentional actions. This has implications for future human relationships as our world becomes populated with smart moving objects, many studies show that we can bond with devices and even enjoy taking orders from them.

There is also the impact of the “uncanny valley” – a term that describes the cognitive dissonance created when something is almost, but not quite, human. This is still a fluid and far from well-understood effect, but it foreshadows our need for familiarity, codes and conventions around human-robot interactions. Film animators have created a vocabulary of tricks that create the illusion of emotion. So, too, have robot designers, who are developing tropes of sounds, colors, and prompts (that may borrow from other devices like traffic lights or popular culture) to help robots convey their intentions to people.

With regard to our response to robots, Knight draws attention to the fallacy of generalization across cultures. Most HRI or Human-Robot Interaction studies show that we also have very different responses along other axes, such as gender, age, experience, engagement etc. regardless of culture.

Similarly, our general responses have undergone significant change as we’ve adapted to precursor technologies such as computers, the internet and mobile phones. Our willingness to involve computers and machines in our personal lives seems immense, but raises the issues of privacy and also social isolation as well as the more benign prospects of utility, therapy and companionship.

As well as perhaps regulating or monitoring the uses of AI, automation and robots, Knight asks: do we need to be proactive in considering the rights of machines? Or at least in considering conventions for their treatment? Ethicists are doing the important job of raising these issues, ranging from what choices an autonomous vehicle should make in a scenario where all possible outcomes involove human injury, or if we should ‘protect’ machines in order to protect our social covenants with real beings. As Kant said in his treatise on ethics, we have no moral obligation towards animals, and yet our behavior towards them reflects our humanity.

“If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.” Kant

This suggests that, as a default, we should create more machines that are machine-like, machines that by design and appearance telegraph their constraints and behaviors. We should avoid the urge to anthropomorphize and personalize our devices, unless we can guarantee our humane treatment of them.

Knight outlines a human-robot partnership framework across three categories: Telepresence Robots, Collaborative Robots and Autonomous Vehicles. A telepresence robot is comparatively transparent, acting as a proxy for a person, who provides the high level control. A collaborative robot may be working directly with someone (as in robot surgery) or be working on command but interacting autonomously with other people (ie. delivery robot). An autonomous vehicle extends the previous scenarios and may be able to operate at distance or respond directly to the driver, pilot or passenger.

The ratio of shared autonomy is shifting towards the robot, and the challenge is to create patterns of interaction that minimize friction and maximize transparency, utility and social good. In conclusion, Knight calls for designers to better understand human culture and practices in order to frame issues for policy makers.

Brookings Institute and NY Times: Creating a place for dialogue

The Brookings Institute also released several other reports on robotics policy directions as part of their series on The Future of Civilian Robots, which culminated in a panel discussion. This format is similar to the NY Times Room for Debate, which brings outside experts together to discuss timely issues. However, there is a preponderance of law, governance, education and journalist experts on the panels, perhaps because these disciplines attract multidisciplinary or “meta” thinkers.

Is this the right mix? Are lawyers the right people to be defining the policy scope of robotics?  Ryan Calo’s contribution to robotics as a law scholar has been both insightful and pragmatic, and well beyond the scope of any one robotics researcher or robot business. However, Calo has made robotics and autonomous vehicles his specialty area and has spent years engaged in dialogue with many robotics researchers and businesses.

Before moving to the University of Washington as Faculty Director of their new Tech Policy Lab, Calo was the Director of Robotics and Privacy at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet & Society. Calo has an AB in Philosophy from Dartmouth College and a Doctorate in Law, cumme laude, from the University of Michigan. His writings have won best paper at conferences, have been read to the Senate, have provoked research grants, and have been republished in many top newspapers and journals.

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? As technologies become more complex, can social issues be considered without a deep understanding of the technology and what it can or can’t enable? Equally, is it the technology that needs to be addressed or regulated, or is it the social practices, which might or might not be changed as we embrace new technologies?

It’s not surprising that lawyers are setting the standard for the policy debate, as writing and enacting policy is their bread and butter. But the underlying conclusion seems to be that we need deep engagement across many disciplines to develop good policy.

Summary: “The Case for a Federal Robotics Commission”

When Toyota customers claimed that their cars were causing accidents, the various government bodies involved called on NASA to investigate the complex technology interactions and separate mechanical issues from software problems. Ryan Calo takes the position that robotics, as a complex emerging technology, needs an organization capable of investigating potential future issues and shaping policy accordingly.

Calo calls on the US to create a Federal Robotics Commission, or risk falling behind the rest of world in innovation. Current bodies are ill-equipped to tackle “robotics in society” issues other than in piecemeal fashion. Understanding robotics requires cross-disciplinary expertise, and the technology itself may make possible new human experiences across a range of fields.

“Specifically, robotics combines, for the first time, the promiscuity of data with physical embodiment – robots are software that can touch you.” says Calo.

Society is still integrating the internet and now “bones are on the line in addition to bits”. There may be more victims, but how do we identify the perpetrators in a future full of robots? Law is, by and large, defined around human intent and foreseeability, so current legal structures may require review.

Calo considers the first robot-specific law passed by Nevada in 2011 for “autonomous vehicles”, which defined autonomous activity in a way that included most modern car behaviors, and thus had to be repealed. Where that error was due to a lack of technical expertise, Calo foresees the problem of a new class of behaviors being introduced.

Human driving error accounts for tens of thousands of fatalities. While autonomous vehicles will almost certainly reduce accidents, they might create some accidents that would not have occurred if humans were driving. Is this acceptable?

Calo also describes the ‘underinclusive’ nature of robotics policy, citing the FAA developing regulations for drones, which often serve as delivery mechanism for small cameras. However, the underlying issue of privacy is raised any time small cameras are badly deployed; in trees, on phones, on poles, or planes, or birds, not just in drones.

Other issues raised by Calo include: the impact of high frequency automated activity with real world repercussions; the potential for adaptive, or ‘cognitive’, use of communications frequencies; and potential problems swapping between automated and human control of systems, if required by either malfunction or law.

Calo then describes his vision for a Federal Robotics Commission modeled on similar previous organizations. This FRC would advise other agencies on policy relating to robots, drones or autonomous vehicles, and also advise federal, state and local lawmakers on robotics law and policy.

The FRC would convene domestic and international stakeholders across industry, government, academia and NGOs to discuss the impact of robotics and AI on society, and could potentially file ‘friend of the court’ briefs in complex technology matters.

Does this justify the call for another agency? Calo admits that there is overlap with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Congressional Research Service. However, he believes that none of these bodies speaks to the whole of the “robotics in society” question.

Calo finishes with an interesting discussion with Cory Doctorow, about whether or not robotics could be considered separate to computers “and the networks that connect them”. Calo posits that the physical harm an embodied system, or robot, could do is very different to the economic or intangible harm done by software alone.

In conclusion, Calo calls for a Federal Robotics Commission to take charge of early legal and policy infrastructure for robotics.  It was the decision to apply the First Amendment to the internet, and to immunize platforms for what users do, that allowed internet technology to thrive. And has, in turn, created new 21st century platforms for legal and policy debate. 

Robohub – Using 21st century tools for science communication

In the 21st century, science has access to a whole new toolbox of communications. Where 19th century science was presented as theater, in the form of public lectures and demonstrations, 20th century science grew an entire business of showcases, primarily conferences and journals. New communication mediums are now disrupting established science communication.

There is an increasing expectation that science can be turned into a top 500 Youtube channel, like Minute Physics, or an award winning twitter account, like Neil De Grasse Tyson’s @neiltyson – which has 2.34 million followers. We are witnessing the rise of MOOCs (multi person open online courses) like the Khan Academy, and Open Access journals, like PLOS, the Public Library of Science.

Berkeley University has just appointed a ‘wikipedian-in-residence’, Kevin Gorman. The ‘wikiepedian-in-residency’ initiative started with museums, libraries and galleries, making information about artifacts and exhibits available to the broader public. This is a first however for a university and the goal is twofold: to extend public access to research that is usually behind paywalls or simply obscure; and to improve the writing, researching and publishing skills of students. Students are encouraged to find gaps in wikipedia and fill them, with reference to existing research.

In between individual experts and global knowledge banks there is space for curated niche content. Robohub is one of the sites that I think can play an integral role in both shaping the quality of debate in robotics and expanding the science communication toolbox. (Yes, I’m deeply involved in the site, so am certainly biased. But the increasing number of experts who are giving their time voluntarily to our site, and the rising amount of visitors, give weight to my assertions.)

Robohub had its inception in 2008 with the birth of the Robots Podcast, a biweekly feature on a range of robotics topics, now numbering more than 150 episodes. As the number of podcasts and contributors grew, the non-profit Robots Association was formed to provide an umbrella group tasked with spinning off new forms of science communication, sharing robotics research and information across the sector, across the globe and to the public.

Robohub is an online news site with high quality content, more than 140 contributors and 65,000 unique visitors per month. Content ranges from one-off stories about robotics research or business, to ongoing lecture series and micro lectures, to inviting debate about robotics issues, like the ‘Robotics by Invitation’ panels and the Roboethics polls. There are other initiatives in development including report production, research video dissemination and being a hub for robotics jobs, crowdfunding campaigns, research papers and conference information.

In lieu of a global robotics policy think tank, organizations like Robohub can do service by developing a range of broad policy reports, or by providing public access to a curated selection of articles, experts and reports.

In Conclusion

“Take me to your leader?” Even if we can identify our leaders, do they know where we are going? I suggest that our current robotics policy agenda needs to be reformed and better informed. This article provides a review of some recent policy reports and considers the changing shape of 21st century scientific debate. In conclusion, I make several recommendations for change:

1. The creation of a global robotics policy think tank.

I believe that a global robotics policy think tank will create informed debate across all silos and all verticals – a better solution than regulation or precautionary principle.

2. That the CTO of USA and the global equivalents make robotics a key strategy discussion.

Robotics has been identified as an important global and national economic driver. The responsibility or impetus to bridge silos, preventing both policy and innovation, must come from the top.

3. That a US Robotics Commission is created – while robotics is an emerging field – to implement a cross disciplinary understanding of this technological innovation and its impacts at all levels of society.

At a national rather than a global level, NASA is stepping in to bridge the gaps between technology developed under the aegis of bodies, like OSTP, NSF, DARPA etc. and the end effector regulatory bodies, like the DOF, DOA, DOT etc. Perhaps a robotics-specific organization or division within NASA is called for.

4. That funding bodies make grants available for cross disciplinary organizations engaged in creating a platform for informed debate on emerging technologies.

Organizations that are cross disciplinary with a global reach find it difficult to qualify for funding, as most funding agencies restrict their contributions, either locally or by discipline. A far-reaching technology like robotics needs a far-reaching policy debate.

Updated 24/09/14 Do robots need to be regulated? Several legal and policy experts think that robot regulations should be developed early and revised often. Others – especially those working on research and development – worry that regulation could put a damper on advancement in robotics before it even has a chance to take off. At Robohub we’ve been following this topic closely and are planning to bring you more views on the issue – so watch this space. In the meantime, check out these recent articles and reports on regulating robots .

Roadmap for developing guidelines on regulating robotic
| EU RoboLaw consortium  
September 23, 2014

The main goal of the RoboLaw project is to achieve a comprehensive study of the various facets of robotics and law and lay the groundwork for a framework of “robolaw” in Europe. When there is no specific legislation aimed at regulating these new technologies, the problems they pose need to be confronted in the frame of extant legal systems; an objective of the research is, therefore, to verify the applicability of current rules and use the present instruments and categories to formulate possible solutions. This preliminary investigation will also point towards areas of regulation that are in need of adjustment or revision in order to accommodate the issues opened up by innovation in the field of robotics.

Problems with precautionary principle-minded tech regulation and a Federal Robotics Commission
| Adam Thierer
September 22, 2014

If there are two general principles that unify my recent work on technology policy and innovation issues, they would be as follows. To the maximum extent possible:

1) We should avoid preemptive and precautionary-based regulatory regimes for new innovation. Instead, our policy default should be innovation allowed (or “permissionless innovation”) and innovators should be considered “innocent until proven guilty” (unless, that is, a thorough benefit-cost analysis has been conducted that documents the clear need for immediate preemptive restraints);

2) We should avoid rigid, “top-down” technology-specific or sector-specific regulatory regimes and/or regulatory agencies and instead opt for a broader array of more flexible, “bottom-up” solutions (education, empowerment, social norms, self-regulation, public pressure, etc.) as well as reliance on existing legal systems and standards (torts, product liability, contracts, property rights, etc.).

Future of robotics debate stumbles over question: What is a robot?
| Wayne Rash
September 15, 2014

Some people are saying that it’s time to regulate robots. But it’s hard to determine how to regulate this technology when there is precious little agreement on what constitutes a robot … When a prestigious organization such as the Brookings Institution here in the nation’s capital decides to study civilian robotics, you know that at the very least the organization will present some thought-provoking views. In that sense, Brookings delivered. Unfortunately, the analysts who were delivering the results of their studies on the Future of Civilian Robotics have yet to agree what actually constitutes robotics.

The case for a federal robotics commission
| Ryan Calo
September 14, 2014

I have argued in a series of papers that robotics enables novel forms of human experience and, as such, challenges prevailing assumptions of law and policy.5 My focus here is on a more specific question: whether robotics, collectively as a set of technologies, will or should occasion the establishment of a new federal agency to deal with the novel experiences and harms robotics enables. In this paper, I explore whether advances in robotics also call for a standalone body within the federal government. I tentatively conclude that the United States would benefit from an agency dedicated to the responsible integration of robotics technologies into American society.

We need to pass legislation on artificial intelligence early and often
| John Frank Weaver 
September 12, 2014

Economists and historians traditionally claim that the technological advances of the Industrial Revolution led to the creation of a large middle class in the United States. That’s only partly true. The technology certainly made that middle class possible, but the legal innovations that we created following the Industrial Revolution made possible the widespread prosperity of the mid-20th century American middle class: minimum wage laws, child labor laws, laws protecting unions, regulations governing workplace safety and environmental protection, etc. All of these laws tried to help average Americans benefit from the new system that the Industrial Revolution introduced. But those laws took 100 years. We don’t get that much time anymore.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments section below, or contact us at info [at] robohub.org if you would like to contribute to our upcoming series.