[m3rc]

Seriously, the roomba doesn't make a judgment about the insect because the roomba isn't making judgments about ANYTHING, it's just an extension of a human's choices, it just happens at a delay from when the human initially sets it up.

This is as much a question of morality, as saying that a vending machine that crushes an insect in its inner workings is a question of robot morality.

[thisGuysAccount]

It's a question of morality in a philosophical sense, not as an application of science or engineering.

The roomba is capable of killing. Whether the operator is aware of this or not, when they use the roomba to clean their floor, they're ceding their moral agency to the device and to its creators.

The logic can be abstracted from the roomba to any other device. This creates the need for device operators, whatever the device, to examine the potential outcomes of device operation and potential assumptions and motivations of the device's creators.

Failure to examine the assumptions and motivations is the same as ceding moral agency, deciding not to decide and throwing hands in the air and saying "well, didn't see that coming" when the creator's assumptions and motivations play out in a way contrary to the operator's morality.

So, yeah, it's about a roomba killing a bug, or a vending machine spilling a soda. It's also about a facial recognition device not noticing a black guy on a black background, or a drone killing a dog because it's barking aggressively.

[m3rc]

I'm sorry, I don't see those in any way the same. In both of your latter examples there IS a judgment being made by a form of AI someone built, there's a question there of someone building a tool that can act and decide things on its own. The roomba and the vending machine don't decide anything, they're just extensions of a human making a decision. That's not "robot morality" any more than it's "sword morality" or "hammer morality".

[thisGuysAccount]

Right, in the case of the roomba and the vending machine, the human decision is 'turn on the roomba' and 'push the vending machine button'

The assumption of the roomba creator is that 'anything on the floor can be vacuumed, living or otherwise.' The moral choice, with regards to the life impacted by the roomba, is to disregard the potential value of the life. It's all debris.

The assumption with the vending machine is similar. The only value considered by the creator is in the transaction involving the operator's money and producing the material the operator wants. Anything else is considered without moral value.

Morality can be as much about the lack of value placed on something as it is about the value placed on something. I'm talking about moral agency, the implications of operating a device, and not about how a robot "feels" about doing something, for the lack of more accurate word.