Update 09/24/14 Should robots be regulated? Several legal and political experts believe that robots regulations should be developed early and often revised. Others – in particular those who work on research and development – fear that the regulations can put a brake on the progress of robotics even before it has a chance to take off. At Robohub, we followed this subject closely and plan to bring you more views on the question – so look at this space. Waiting for, Discover these articles and recent reports on the regulation of robots .
Roadmap for the development of guidelines on the regulation of robotics
| Consortium EU Robolaw
September 23, 2014
The main objective of the Robolaw project is to carry out a complete study of the different facets of robotics and law and to lay the foundations for a “Robolaw” framework in Europe. When there is no specific legislation aimed at regulating these new technologies, the problems they pose must be confronted within the framework of existing legal systems; A research objective is therefore to verify the applicability of current rules and to use the current instruments and categories to formulate possible solutions. This preliminary survey will also indicate to regulatory areas that need adjustment or revision in order to adapt to the problems opened by innovation in the robotics field.
Precaution problems technological regulation concerned with the principle and a commission of federal robotics
| Adam Thierer
September 22, 2014
If there are two general principles that unify my recent works on technological and innovation policy problems, they would be as follows. To the maximum possible extent:
1) We must avoid preventive regulatory plans based on precautions for a new innovation. Instead, our lack of policy should be Authorized innovation (Or “Innovation without authorization”) And innovators should be considered as“ innocent until guilt is proven ”(unless, in -depth analysis of the cost of benefits has been carried out which clearly documents the need for immediate preventive constraints);
2) We must avoid regulatory regimes and / or regulatory agencies specific to rigid and specific technology or sectoral and opt for a larger range of more flexible and “ascending” solutions (education, empowerment, social standards, self-regulation, public pressure, etc.) as well as existing property rights (titles, contracts, contracts, rights, rights, rights, rights
The future of the robotic debate falls on the question: what is a robot?
| Wayne Rash
September 15, 2014
Some people say it’s time to regulate robots. But it is difficult to determine how to regulate this technology when there are a little precious agreement on what constitutes a robot … when a prestigious organization such as the Brooking Institution here in the country’s capital decides to study civil robotics, you know that at least, the organization will present points of view that stimulate reflection. In this sense, BrooKings has delivered. Unfortunately, analysts who provided the results of their studies on the Future of civil robotics have not yet agreed what really constitutes robotics.
The case for a federal robotics commission
| Ryan Calo
September 14, 2014
I have supported in a series of articles that robotics allows new forms of human experience and, as such, questions the dominant hypotheses of law and politics.5 I focus here on a more specific question: if robotics, collectively as a set of technologies, will be or should cause the creation of a new federal agency to deal with new experiences and harm robotics. In this article, I explore if the progress of robotics also call for an autonomous organization within the federal government. I temporarily conclude that the United States would benefit from an agency dedicated to responsible integration of robotic technologies in American society.
We must adopt legislation on artificial intelligence early and often
| John Frank Weaver
September 12, 2014
Economists and historians traditionally claim that the technological progress of the industrial revolution has led to the creation of a high middle class in the United States. It is only partially true. Technology has certainly made this middle class possible, but the legal innovations that we created as a result of the industrial revolution made possible the generalized prosperity of the American middle class in the middle of the 20th century: laws on minimum wage, laws on child labor, laws protecting unions, regulations governing the safety of the workplace and environmental protection, etc. All these laws have tried to help the American Americans benefit from the new industrial revolution introduced. But these laws have taken 100 years. We no longer receive as much time.
What to do You think? Let us know in the comments section below, or contact us on Info (AT) Robohub.org if you want to contribute to our next series.
Tags: Colitic C-Politics-Society,, Robohub focuses on the regulation of robotics,, robot law,, robot policy,, Robots regulation
Hallie Siegel Robotics editor-in-chief