Sign in: Staff/Students
Michael Fisher is a Professor of Computer Science and Director of the University of Liverpool’s Centre for Autonomous Systems Technology (CAST)
“Robots, and autonomous systems in general, can cause anxiety and uncertainty, particularly as their use in everyday tasks becomes a more immediate possibility.
In order to lessen at least some of that anxiety, we should shift our focus from the decisions robots could make on our behalf, to how they actually make them in the first place. In some ways, they may be more trustworthy than a human.
Autonomous systems here to stay
Like it or not, autonomous systems are here and here to stay. By “autonomy” we mean the ability of a system to make its own decisions about what to do and when to do it. So far, most of the examples you might have come across, such as robot vacuum cleaners, aircraft autopilots and automated parking systems in your car, are simple and not even particularly autonomous. These systems adapt to their environment, responding automatically to environmental changes. They are pre-programmed to adapt to environmental stimuli.
But old science fiction stories warn us about systems that go further. What worries us is what happens when a human pilot, driver or operator is replaced by software that makes its own choices about what to do.
In air travel, an autopilot system can keep an aircraft flying on a certain path, but there is a human pilot deciding which path to take, when to divert, and how to deal with unexpected situations. Similarly, cruise control, lane control and soon convoying will allow our cars to carry out path following activities though drivers will continue to make the big decisions.
It is at this point that many of us start to worry. If a machine can truly make its own decisions then how do we know it is safe?
After seeing movies such as Terminator, we wonder how we can trust machines not to double-cross us. For many, the idea of boarding an aeroplane that flies itself is unnerving, let alone the thought of allowing an autonomous robot assistant in their home.
It can feel like we face two options. Either we blindly trust these machines or we refuse to use autonomous systems at all. But a third option is possible.
When we deal with another human, we can’t be sure what they will decide but we make assumptions based on what we think of them. We consider whether that person has lied to us in the past or has a record for making mistakes. But we can’t really be certain about any of our assumptions as the other person could still deceive us.
Our autonomous systems, on the other hand, are essentially controlled by software so if we can isolate the software that makes all the high-level decisions – those decisions that a human would have made – then we can analyse the detailed working of these programs. That’s not something you can or possibly ever could easily do with a human brain.
So, once we isolate the software making the high-level decisions within our autonomous systems, we can then analyse the detailed working of these programs through formal verification.
Our research concerns exactly this formal verification of autonomous system behaviours and, in some cases, we can prove that the software controlling our system will never make bad decisions.
The process of decision-making is central to making a robot trustworthy. That’s how we can be more comfortable with the eventual outcomes of those decisions. The environments in which such systems work are typically both complex and uncertain. So while accidents can still occur, we can at least be sure that the system always tries to avoid them. This might seem insufficient, but it allows us to tackle some of the those old science fiction concerns.
While we cannot say that a robot will never accidentally harm someone, through formal verification we might well be able to prove that the robot never intentionally means to cause harm. By looking at the system’s internal programming, we can often assess not just what it decides to do, but why it decided to do it.
Although people will still be wary of robots and autonomous systems, if they know that the system is not actively intending to double-cross them, then they are likely to trust such systems a little more.
The main problem now becomes what to prove, rather than how to prove it. We might try to prove that a robot never deliberately chooses to harm a human. But what about medical robots or police robots? A medical robot might try to resuscitate someone, for example by exerting pressure on their chest. But that might inadvertently harm them.
A police robot is charged with protecting the public but what if a criminal is shooting a gun at someone? Can the robot harm the criminal in order to avert the greater danger?
We are clearly moving on from technical questions towards philosophical and ethical questions about what behaviour we find acceptable and what ethical behaviour our robots should exhibit. Having a clear view of how our robots are programmed to make decisions will help us as we try to make decisions on both fronts.
CAST is an inter-disciplinary research centre that provides expertise in autonomous systems from across the University including Computer Science, Electrical Engineering and Electronics, Engineering, Psychology, Law and the Virtual Engineering Centre.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
All recent news
Prof Tom Solomon elected Vice President of the Academy of Medical Sciences
Liverpool Bayesian model helps calculate COVID-19 R rate
Event: Live, interactive family show on COVID with Tom Solomon
Merseyside Police warn students about webcam sextortion
New JetDose project set to optimise proton beam cancer therapy
We welcomed Minister for Small Business, Paul Scully MP (@scullyp) this afternoon to discuss @UoLManSchool's successful roll out of the #HelptoGrow scheme
A big day today - 3 #CLPU members @SyngeLaw @JohnPicton5 and Professor Debra Morris gave evidence at the House of Lords Special Public Bills Committee on the new Charities Bill. 📽️📽️📽️Watch here: https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/258d880e-995f-4975-8620-c78bf149529a #charitylaw
Professor Eithne Costello from @LivUni on the link between Type 2 Diabetes and Pancreatic Cancer #ITVTonight at 8pm.