The only way to keep robots totally ethical is to suppress mutations entirely. If robots can gain an selective advantage by mutating they will evolve to deceive each other. If they mutate could gain advantages by deceiving us then they'd do that too.
Researchers in Switzerland have developed an experimental system that allows them to track the evolution of social cues. The experiments do not, however, involve the Swiss population. Instead, the individuals involved are small-wheeled robots that compete for food and emit light to signal to their neighbors. Evolution occurs because their behavior is controlled by a set of 33 digital "genes." In a paper that will be released later this week by PNAS, the authors describe how these robots evolve to avoid tipping their competitors off to the site of a food source.
Evolution corrupts us. To create virtuous creatures we'd need to genetically engineer them to morally superiority. Will be doable some day.
Robots do not degrade into total corruption though. Kinda like humans.
Over the first few generations, robots quickly evolved to successfully locate the food, while emitting light randomly. This resulted in a high intensity of light near food, which provided social information allowing other robots to more rapidly find the food. Because robots were competing for food, they were quickly selected to conceal this information. However, they never completely ceased to produce information. Detailed analyses revealed that this somewhat surprising result was due to the strength of selection in suppressing information declining concomitantly with the reduction in information content. Accordingly, a stable equilibrium with low information and considerable variation in communicative behaviors was attained by mutation-selection. Because a similar co-evolutionary process should be common in natural systems, this may explain why communicative strategies are so variable in many animal species.
Sounds familiar, no?
Update: Since we do not all agree on what is ethical even the ability to genetically engineer or electronically engineer intelligent ethical creatures will not stop ethical conflicts. Instead, the engineered creatures will just add more combatants to our disagreements.
If the new ethical agents mutate then they'll mutate away from their original ethical programming. Unless they are under control of a single massive artificial intelligence they will come into conflict with each other and with us.
Intelligent robotic creatures are more problematic because they are more easily reprogrammed. You'll be better able to rely on a human friend holding the same views and behaving the same ways. With robots you'll never know whether some human or other robot hacked into your robotic friend 5 minutes ago and just turned him (I notice I think of robots as males) into an embezzler or psychopathic killer.
Do you see Terminators threatening all of humanity in the future?
A robotics expert at the University of Sheffield will today (27 February 2008) issue stark warnings over the threat posed to humanity by new robot weapons being developed by powers worldwide.
In a keynote address to the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), Professor Noel Sharkey, from the University’s Department of Computer Science, will express his concerns that we are beginning to see the first steps towards an international robot arms race. He will warn that it may not be long before robots become a standard terrorist weapon to replace the suicide bomber.
Many nations are now involved in developing the technology for robot weapons, with the US Department of Defence (DoD) being the most significant player. According to the Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2013 (published in December 2007), the US propose to spend an estimated $4 billion by 2010 on unmanned systems technology. The total spending is expected to rise above $24 billion.
Over 4,000 robots are currently deployed on the ground in Iraq and by October 2006 unmanned aircraft had flown 400,000 flight hours. Currently there is always a human in the loop to decide on the use of lethal force. However, this is set to change with the US giving priority to autonomous weapons - robots that will decide on where, when and who to kill.
I see at least one big obstacle in the way of a robotic take-over: The need for robots to refuel. They just can't carry enough energy for sustained operation without refueling. Power supply limitations are a major obstacle in the way of development of better prosthetic arms and legs.
The development of mini fusion reactors would lift that limitation. Or perhaps some other technologies will allow robots to operate autonomously for extended periods of time.
Another problem with robot take-over scenarios is that they presumably won't all be running the same software. Unless they all run the same software they could be made by humans to be hostile toward robots that carry other software. Why would robots all feel kinship? I don't expect they will unless they are all produced out of the same factory and programmed to feel that dangerous kinship.