Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1012.5594

The Ethics of Robotics

Kush Agrawal
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The three laws of Robotics first appeared together in Isaac Asimov's story 'Runaround' after being mentioned in some form or the other in previous works by Asimov. These three laws commonly known as the three laws of robotics are the earliest forms of depiction for the needs of ethics in Robotics. In simplistic language Isaac Asimov is able to explain what rules a robot must confine itself to in order to maintain societal sanctity. However, even though they are outdated they still represent some of our innate fears which are beginning to resurface in present day 21st Century. Our society is on the advent of a new revolution; a revolution led by advances in Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence & Nanotechnology. Some of our advances have been so phenomenal that we surpassed what was predicted by the Moore's law. With these advancements comes the fear that our future may be at the mercy of these androids. Humans today are scared that we, ourselves, might create something which we cannot control. We may end up creating something which can not only learn much faster than anyone of us can, but also evolve faster than what the theory of evolution has allowed us to. The greatest fear is not only that we might lose our jobs to these intelligent beings, but that these beings might end up replacing us at the top of the cycle. The public hysteria has been heightened more so by a number of cultural works which depict annihilation of the human race by robots. Right from Frankenstein to I, Robot mass media has also depicted such issues. This paper is an effort to understand the need for ethics in Robotics or simply termed as Roboethics. This is achieved by the study of artificial beings and the thought being put behind them. By the end of the paper, however, it is concluded that there isn't a need for ethical robots but more so ever a need for ethical roboticists.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.RO

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Kush Agrawal. 2010-12-27. The Ethics of Robotics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5594

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗