There is very little written on how the law should deal with real life robots andmuch of it highly aspirational, based on ideas of human-intelligent robots that may never happen. THis ppt tries to look at legal issues for robots in now to 5-10 years on, and focuses on liability for harms caused by robots in domestic/consumer settings.

1. Robbie the Robot Goes (W)Rong! Lilian Edwards Professor of E-Governance University of Strathclyde GikIIGothenberg June 2011

2. What this isn’t about Human-intelligent robots /“Strong AI” The “singularity” Transhumanism (human mind into metal container) Cyborgism (human mind/body enhanced by robotics) Here and now – robots “about as intelligent as dishwashers”, or lobsters (Winfield) Current/near current legal issues – 5-10 years away Not (exclusively) morality, ethics or philosophy – real problems not “case studies”

3. Why be so boring? ESPRC retreat on robot ethics, September 2011 Roboticists, philosophers, law, ethics, cultural studies, journalism Why? fear that robots will be the “next GM”: held back by public fears

4. Why now? Robots are “ a mechanicalcontraption which can perform tasks on its own, or with guidance”. Ability to learn often added. Need not be humanoid. May be “swarm” entity not isolate. Embodiment probably vital to definition cf AI, bots. Robots already prevalent in military, industrial use However now moving into consumer, domestic, and “caring” environments Sales of professional/service domestic robots => 11.5 m in 2011 (double from 2008) Japan leader; S Korea aims 1 robot/ home by 2015. US/West lag behind – cultural issues? Technophobia vs loving the alien.

8. DOMESTIC ROBOTS

9. AIBO ASIMO

10. Newer care robots - PARO

11. Sexbots

12. Smart robot transport

13. Slicing the legal cake? Robots as legal category (cf “virtual property”) Analogies: Person (legal personality) Slave (lesser legal personality – cf Katz, Roman law of slavery to get round agency issues re bots) Animal? (animate, sub-legal personality, unpredictable, some anthropomorphism) *Tool – machine – car – manaufactured object Fails to capture aspect of learning/adap[tivity/unpredictability Software? Split it by legal area? Liability for harm caused (who is responsible?); privacy; (criminal law?)

14. Asimov’s Three laws of Robotics A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

15. 3 (5) Laws for Roboticists Edwards' Three Laws for Roboticists1.Robots are multi-use tools. Robots should not be designed solely or primarily to kill, except in the interests of national security.2 Humans are responsible for the actions of robots. Robots should be designed & operated as far as is practicable to comply with existing laws & fundamental rights and freedoms, including privacy.3) Robots are products. As such they should be designed using processes which assure their safety and security (which does not exclude their having a reasonable capacity to safeguard their integrity).

16. .. Plus.. Robots are manufactured artefacts, so they should not be designed in a deceptive way to exploit vulnerable users (their machine nature should be transparent); It should always be possible to find out who is legally responsible for a robot. (cf registered keeper of cars? Register of data controllers? Person who “signed” contract to buy robot?) => first legal area for immediate concern – liability.

18. A mining robot excavates wrong area and landslip results damaging civilian houses

19. A Roomba trips up an old person who hurts herself

20. A care robot fails to stop one child from hitting another (?) as not in programmed remit; or report an old person swallowing too many pills (not too few)

21. A sex robot “learns” one kind of behaviour as desirable from person A (eg caning) that causes harm to person B

23. Liability models - 2 Animals :cf PARO, AIBO; Boscarato , 2011 ; robots = locomotive, some autonomy. Eg Roombas.= tripping person up. Liability of custodian (user, or owner – not necc the same)(art 2051, 2 Italian CC). Not strict liability eg act of child clambering on to it might elide liability. Issues – v different across many legal systems? Eg Are robots tame or wild?? OK for Roombas but driverless cars? Sexbots? Children?! Boscarato. VERY divergent civil/common law traditions etc. Eg Scots law , no automatic resp of parent for ch’sdelicts. Robots have no ability to reach “maturity”?

24. Liability models - 3 Contract: Allocate liability by contract. Issues of divergent treatment of exclusion clauses The “small print” and “shrink wrap” problems Imbalance of power consumer/manufacturer. Causation issue re learning can be avoided by explicit clauses Is software the place to look for models?? *Industry and other codes eg BSI, OSI, medical tech, health and safety An insurance market. Cf cars – likely to arise for driverless cars anyway, but other robot classes? Establishing risks; who pays? Compulsory insurance of owner? We don’t require for dishwashers – or pets! Is any consistent model desirable?

25. A few thoughts Is there value to considering robots as a special and cognate category for liability? Not clear. Cf privacy – Calo identifies 3 issues that do cross many robot “types” – increased direct surveillance; access to domestic sphere; and social confusion (responding to robots as if human). Any new liability rules will have to interact with existing regimes: particularly re product liability and software liability. Picking analogies requires great care cf ISP liability and newsstands/publishers etc. Lack of jurisdictional harmonisation will be huge issue. A mature insurance market may be answer.