Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!ncar!gatech!purdue!decwrl!labrea!glacier!jbn
From: jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Punishment of machines
Message-ID: <17434@glacier.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: 6 May 88 04:01:53 GMT
References: <770@onion.cs.reading.ac.uk> <1177@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <10942@sunybcs.UUCP> <31024@linus.UUCP>
Reply-To: jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 18
Keywords: randomness responsibility

In article <31024@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort) writes:
>I was intrigued by David Sher's comments about "machine responsibility".
>
>It is not uncommon for a child to "spank" a machine which misbehaves.
>But as adults, we know that when a machine fails to carry out its
>function, it needs to be repaired or possibly redesigned.  But we
>do not punish the machine or incarcerate it.
>
      The concept of a machine which could be productively punished is
not totally unreasonable.  It is, in fact, a useful property for some robots
to have.  Robots that operate in the real world need mechanisms that implement
fear and pain to survive.  Such machines will respond positively to punishment.

      I am working toward this end, am constructing suitable hardware and
software, and expect to demonstrate such robots in about a year. 


					John Nagle