Giving Online Learning a Try With a Crash Course in Robot Ethics

It's 6 a.m. in Los Angeles, but I have a fresh pot of coffee abreast me, and I'one thousand ready for class to brainstorm.

Grade, in this case, is being conducted through my computer. I'm enrolled in a massive open online grade (MOOC) through FutureLearn, and for the past 3 weeks, my Philosophy of Technology and Blueprint class has studied the challenges (and opportunities) betwixt humans and our emerging silicon cousins (robots, automated transportation, and other things as yet uninvented).

Our professor, Dr. Peter-Paul Verbeek, is from the University of Twente in the netherlands, while my classmates include AI researchers, industrial engineers from Indonesia, a ceremonious engineer from South korea, system designer from India, quite a few educators from Western Europe, and at least nine PhDs from Kingdom of denmark, Italy, UK, and the Usa.

We're not alone. According to stats from Class Cardinal, at least 23 million people registered for a MOOC for the starting time fourth dimension in 2022; overall, 58 million students at 700+ universities took 6,850 online courses worldwide final yr.

A Crash Course in 'PhilTech'

In my Philosophy of Technology course, we started with a primer in—new jargon warning!—PhilTech concepts, from the "classical" approaches of Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers up to the current instrumentalism view, where tech is an instrument of human desires and goals, versus determinism (tech development changes society itself).

So we looked at tech devices, specifically robots, equally "mediating" betwixt us and the earth, particularly when used in teaching and health care as assistants. These and then-called social robots are designed to recognize and interpret man behavior, then respond appropriately.

Softbank Pepper Robot

Ane instance the professor provided was a security robot in a shopping mall that needs to know whether people are inciting a anarchism or just dancing merrily in a flash mob. Most human being-robot interaction designers do this past embedding socio-emotive A.I. (like Affectiva) so robots tin can examine facial cues. Then beware if you're glowering to goth music, as robots could misinterpret your dance moves equally nefarious activity.

Week 3 focused on ideals, morals, and behavior-influencing technology. Are there ideals in things? The curt answer, our professor explained, is no. Things don't possess intent; only humans do. Only, Dr. Verbeek continued, technologies can be seen as moral agents.

"Upstanding deportment and decisions are not taken in a vacuum, but within a context in which technologies inevitably play a role. Technologies mediate ethics, mediate morality," he said. "They inform our ethical choices, our ethical behavior and therefore, we need to deal with mediations in a responsible way, when we use blueprint or implement technologies."

Dr. Verbeek and so asked, "Then, can nosotros design moral technologies?"—a concept which, I admit, I'd never actually considered.

"In the same way that automatic turnstiles are designed to foreclose people from inbound the metro without a ticket, technologies can be designed that stimulate environmentally friendly behavior and discourage environmentally unfriendly behaviour, such as speed limiters in automobiles or h2o-saving showerheads," Dr. Verbeek said

If you're curious, here's a TedX speech he gave on this:

A MOOC Convert?

So, having finished the three week MOOC, how did I fare?

It was certainly different to my pupil days at the Academy of London many (many) years ago. The MOOC had an appealingly clean UI, and it was elementary to navigate through the various tasks; a progress bar permit yous know where you were in the allotted steps.

FutureLearn I enjoyed being able to watch videos, read the transcript, get to discussions to review what my fellow students idea, complete textual responses to the professor'due south questions (without fighting for attention in a lecture hall or sitting through a boring response from the teacher's pet), and then marking as complete—all from the comforts of my Life/Work space in Los Angeles.

I didn't pay to be "graded," though. For how I currently earn my living, I don't experience I need any more than qualifications. But I'k open to the idea, and that is office of the FutureLearn business model, after all.

Of course participating in a MOOC is a great manner for educational establishments to source bright international students. Professor Verbeek has open enrollment to his Master's program—Philosophy of Science Technology and Society—and, judging from the conversation in the threaded discussions after each week'southward assignments, at least some of my fellow students are considering it.

In an email, Dr. Verbeek said he sees the MOOC as an ideal new way to bring the latest bookish insights to those outside a traditional higher campus.

"For me, offering a MOOC on our electric current work is an important way to connect academia and gild. I regard it equally our social responsibility to bring philosophical insights to social contexts where they can be helpful and meaningful," he said. "It's very inspiring to me that people with and so many different backgrounds participated in the MOOC. I really hope that it gave them refreshing new views and insights, and helps them to think more critically and mayhap even responsibly nigh engineering science in their daily life and work."

The all-time attribute, for me, was access to truly interesting thinkers—over 5,600 miles abroad—and taking the time to ponder subjects that intrigue me, without committing to expensive travel. Through the MOOC, I obtained a clearer understanding of the design issues inherent in human-robot interaction, and know it volition inform my future reporting for PCMag on this emerging field.