Trzy Prawa Robotyki, gry kooperacyjne, gry edukacyjne, gry poważne, interakcja człowiek– –robot, postawy wobec robotów
Abstract (EN)
and ambiguous concepts (such as the
concept of harm), which, if implemented in their original form, would not
be straightforwardly understandable to artificial intelligence [McCauley, 2007].
Additionally, assuming that the actions of robots would be based on the Three
Laws, we would require machines to be almost omniscient—able to predict
the consequences of every action they take. Asimov’s laws also assume that
4
See e.g. “Bicentennial Man” [1999] or “I, Robot” [2004].
93
Paweł Łupkowski, Aleksandra Wasielewska
robots have sufficiently developed cognitive and volitional abilities to make
moral decisions while simultaneously overlooking the technical details related
to the existence of such abilities [Murphy, Woods, 2009].
We are far from reaching a clear answer to the question of whether
robots should have moral rights (moral standing)—to be regarded (like
humans) as moral agents [Anderson, 2008, see also Sullins 2011 and Floridi,
& Sanders, 2004]. Various indicators of this status are cited, such as the ability
to feel pain. Regardless of our position, it seems problematic in conjunction
with Asimov’s Laws. If we assume that robots should possess the status of
moral agents, then Asimov’s Laws treat them too instrumentally—like tools,
similar to many other tools serving humans. Thus, the Three Laws of Robotics
cannot serve as an appropriate set of ethical principles for these entities.
However, even if robots do not deserve the title of moral agents, Asimov’s
laws still do not seem appropriate for thinking machines. According to Kant’s
philosophy (1963), all ethical laws humans create must be based on full respect
for treating even those beings/entities that do not have moral rights. We are,
therefore, obligated to treat robots, just as animals, with respect. We can force
them to perform tasks serving our goals, but we should not treat them in
a harmful manner. Asimov’s Laws of Robotics allow for situations in which
robots are subjected to harm. An example of such a scenario is described by
Asimov himself in one of his stories. It depicts a situation where an innocent
robot, attacked by human hooligans, cannot defend itself because the Second
Law (requiring obedience to humans) takes precedence over the Third Law
(requiring self-protection). Since Asimov’s laws do not prevent humans from
mistreating intelligent machines, they do not seem to be satisfactory moral
principles [Anderson, 2008].
The growing need for an appropriate ethical framework for robots and
the critique of Asimov’s laws has led to numerous modifications and alternative
versions of the Three Laws. Some of these are extensions of Asimov’s Laws.
Clarke [1994, in McCauley, 2007] proposed a code in which the Third and
Second Laws are enhanced with provisions regarding other robots. For example,
in Clarke’s Second Law, a robot is obligated not only to obey orders from
humans but also those given by “superior” robots [McCauley, 2007, p. 161].
This code also includes three additional laws: the Meta-Law, the Fourth Law,
and the Procreation Law. Authors of other ethical codes have stayed within
the convention of creating three laws but have altered their original content.
In their “alternative laws of responsible robotics” [Murphy, Woods, 2009],
they shed light on operational morality, aiming to create a more practical
and implementable code.
94
THREE: An Educational Game Inspired by Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics
Finally, there are sets of laws that are very different from the Three Laws
of Robotics, such as the EURON5. The authors of this code list five principles
of roboethics:
1. Safety. We should provide systems for the control of robots’ autonomy.
Operators should be able to limit robots’ autonomy when the correct
robot’s behaviour is not guaranteed.
2. Security: Hardware (H/W) and Software (S/W) keys to avoid
inappropriate or illegal use of the robot.
3. Traceability: as in the case of sensitive systems, we should provide for
systems like the aircraft’s black box, to be able to register and document
robot’s behaviours.
4. Identifiability: as cars and other vehicles, also robots should have
identification numbers and serial numbers.
5. Privacy: H/W and S/W systems to encrypt and password protect sensitive
data needed to the robot to perform its tasks or acquired during its
activity.
Despite the flaws mentioned above in Asimov’s Laws, the described set
of principles plays an important role in the developing world. The current
form of the laws is considered imperfect, yet the need for an ethical code for
robots leads to continued attempts to modify the Three Laws. In countries
such as Japan and South Korea, where the number of produced robots is
substantial, and their level of advancement is high (which is linked to the high
demand for robots to assist with tasks such as elderly care), principles based
on Asimov’s Laws of Robotics are imposed on intelligent machine constructors
by the government [Anderson, 2017; Campa, 2011]. In 2016, a European
report called on EU bodies to create new regulatory frameworks for robot
behaviour. Interestingly, one of the general principles refers to the Three Laws
of Robotics, which play an important role in justifying the document.
McCauley [2007] mentions that, in order to avoid concerns about
undesirable robot behaviours, individuals involved in creating, studying, and
developing intelligent machines should take an oath similar to the Hippocratic
Oath taken by doctors. The so-called “Roboticists Oath,” as described by the
author, is strongly tied to Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics.6
5
http://www.roboethics.org/index_file/Roboethics%20Roadmap%20Rel.1.2.pdf [accessed:
14.02.2025]. See also summary and discussion of the results of the Euron Roboethics Atelier
2006 in [Veruggio, 2016].
6
As van Wynsberghe & Sharkey [2020, p. 281] write in a special issue of “Ethics and
Information Technology” journal: “Some of the concerns in relation to the robotics and
95
Paweł Łupkowski, Aleksandra Wasielewska
The Three Laws of Robotics continue to be actively discussed in
considerations of morality, ethics, and roboethics. More contemporary ethical
issues, in which laws defining the moral framework for robot behaviour could
be helpful, include, for example, the modern version of the so-called trolley
problem relating to autonomous vehicles. Although some argue that lawyers
will regulate such dilemmas without the involvement of roboethics [Donde,
2017], there are reasons to believe that judges, lawyers, and ethicists should
join forces to create and update the code of robot laws. In such a vision,
science fiction can serve as a field for exploring different ideas and hypotheses
for the future and a valuable resource to assess public opinion on artificial
intelligence—thus improving it if necessary [Slocombe, 2016].
Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics are just one of many examples
of how science fiction has permeated our real-world understanding of robots,
shaping not only the ethical frameworks we consider but also influencing
our perceptions, treatment, and interactions with intelligent machines
in contemporary society. A growing body of literature has examined the
relationship between fictional robot characters and science fiction media and
people’s attitudes toward real-world robots or even the impact of the former on
the latter [Bruckenberger et al., 2013; Mara, & Appel, 2015; Sundar, Waddell,
& Jung, 2016; Riek, Adams, & Robinson, 2011; Mubin, Obaid, & Sandoval,
2015]. This association is of particular interest because, despite the increasing
presence of robots in various domains, many individuals still have limited
direct interaction with real-world social robots [Gou, Webb, & Prescott, 2021].
Nevertheless, evidence suggests that our perceptions and attitudes toward real
robots are shaped, to a significant extent, by the portrayals of robots in fiction.
Whether positive or negative, fictional depictions play a crucial role in forming
the mental models we apply when engaging with robotic technology.
automation of today focus on the potential loss of jobs, the quality of jobs available, privacy
concerns for data collected, and human rights issues when targeting vulnerable demographics
as users/consumers of robots (e.g. children, elderly persons, hospital patients), to name a few.
To exacerbate these issues consumers have little trust in many technology companies when
the dominant corporations continue to prove themselves unworthy of society’s trust by
demonstrating a lack of concern for privacy, coercion, and democracy or democratic process.
If robotics is truly to succeed in making our world a better place, the public must be able to
place their trust in the designers, developers, implementers and regulators of robot technologies.
To do this, we must engage in the responsible research and innovation of robot development
processes as well as the
Allport G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In: C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology
(pp. 798–844). Worcester: Clark University Press.
Anderson M. R. (2017). After 75 years, Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics need updating,
https://theconversation.com/after-75-years-isaac-asimovs-three-laws-of-robotics-need-
updating-74501 [accessed: 14.02.2025].
Anderson S. (2008). ‘Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics and machine metaethics’. AI & SOCIETY
22, 477–493.
Asimov I. (1942). ‘Runaround’. Astounding Science Fiction 29(1), 94–103.
Asimov I. (1981). The Three Laws, Compute! 11(18), 18.
Backlund P., & Hendrix M. (2013, September). Educational games-are they worth the effort?
A literature survey of the effectiveness of serious games. In: 2013 5th international
conference on games and virtual worlds for serious applications (VS-GAMES) (pp. 1–8).
IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/VS-GAMES.2013.6624226.
Bayeck R. Y. (2020). Examining Board Gameplay and Learning: A Multidisciplinary
Review of Recent Research. Simulation & Gaming, 51(4), 411–431. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1046878119901286.
Breuer J., & Bente G. (2010). Why so serious? On the relation of serious games and learning.
Journal for Computer Game Culture, 4, 7-24. https://doi.org/10.7557/23.6111.
Bruckenberger U., Weiss A., Mirnig N., Strasser E., Stadler S., & Tscheligi M. (2013). The Good,
The Bad, The Weird: Audience Evaluation of a “Real” Robot in Relation to Science Fiction
and Mass Media (Vol. 8239, p. 310). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_30.
Caillois R. (1997). Gry i ludzie [Man, Play and Games]. Trans. A. Tatarkiewicz, M. Żurowska.
Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza Volumen.
Campa R. (2011). ‘Kodeksy etyczne robotów: zagadnienie kontroli sprawowanej przez człowieka’
[Ethical Codes of Robots: The Issue of Human Control]. Pomiary Automatyka Robotyka 15,
66–70.
Charlier N., Zupancic N., Fieuws S., Denhaerynck K., Zaman B., & Moons P. (2016). Serious
games for improving knowledge and self-management in young people with chronic
conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical
Informatics Association, 23(1), 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv100.
Clarke R. (1994). ‘Asimov’s laws of robotics: Implications for information technology.
2’. Computer, 27(1), 57–66.
Diaz M., Nuño N., Saez-Pons J., Pardo D. E., & Angulo C. (2011, March). Building up child-
robot relationship for therapeutic purposes: From initial attraction towards long-term
social engagement. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture
Recognition (FG) (pp. 927–932). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FG.2011.5771375.
Donde J. (2017). ‘Self-driving cars will kill people. who decides who dies?’, https://www.wired.com/
story/self-driving-cars-will-kill-people-who-decides-who-dies/. [accessed: 14.02.2025].
Duarte L. C. S., Battaiola A. L., & Silva A. H. (2015). Cooperation in Board Games. Proceedings
of SBGames 2015, Brazil, November 11th–13th, 2015. pp. 536–545.
Erdogan A., Sunay M. A., & Çevirgen A. E. (2022). How to Play Board Games? A Framework
Proposal for Classroom Settings. Board Game Studies Journal, 16(2), 101–122.
https://doi.org/10.2478/bgs-2022-0021
108
THREE: An Educational Game Inspired by Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics
Fishbein M., & Ajzen I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple
behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59–74.
Floridi L., & Sanders J. W. (2004). On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 14,
349–379. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MIND.0000035461.63578.9d
Fong T., Nourbakhsh I., & Dautenhahn K. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots.
Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-
8890(02)00372-X
Francikowski J. (2018). ‘Wykorzystanie gier planszowych w nauczaniu przedmiotów
przyrodniczych’ [The Use of Board Games in Teaching Natural Sciences], Homo Ludens,
1(11), 30–40.
Giger Jean-Christophe, Daniel Moura, Nuno Almeida, and Nuno Piçarra [2017). Attitudes
towards social robots: The role of gender, belief in human nature uniqueness,
religiousness and interest in science fiction. In Proceedings of II International Congress
on Interdisciplinarity in Social and Human Sciences, 11, 509.
Gou M. S., Webb T. L., & Prescott T. (2021). The effect of direct and extended contact on
attitudes towards social robots. Heliyon, 7(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
heliyon.2021.e06418
Gunkel D. (2011). The machine question. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hinz N. A., Ciardo F., Wykowska A. (2019). Individual Differences in Attitude Toward
Robots Predict Behavior in Human-Robot Interaction. In: Salichs, M., et al. Social
Robotics. ICSR 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11876. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35888-4_7.
Hogan K. (2017). Is the machine question the same question as the animal question? Ethics
and Information Technology, 19(1), 29–38.
Jones S. M., Katyal P., Xie X., Nicolas M. P., Leung E. M., Noland D. M., & Montclare J. K.
(2019). A ‘KAHOOT!’ Approach: The Effectiveness of Game-Based Learning for an
Advanced Placement Biology Class. Simulation & Gaming, 50(6), 832–847. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1046878119882048
Kant I. (1963). Lectures on ethics. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant,
Cambridge University Press.
Kossewska J. (2024). Roboty humanoidalne w terapii dzieci z zaburzeniami ze spektrum
autyzmu – szanse i zagrożenia. [Humanoid Robots in the Therapy of Children with
Autism Spectrum Disorders: Opportunities and Risks]. Roczniki Kulturoznawcze, 15(2),
41–61.
Lavender T. J. (2008). Homeless: it’s no game-measuring the effectiveness of a persuasive video
game, PhD thesis, School of Interactive Arts & Technology-Simon Fraser University.
Lubiszewski D. (2009). ‘Roboetyka – czy jest już dziś potrzebna?’ [Roboethics – Is It Still
Necessary Today?], http://etykapraktyczna.pl/wpis/2010/07/06/roboetyka-czy-jest-
potrzebna. [accessed: 14.02.2025].
Łupkowski P. (2015). TRZY. Gra kooperacyjna inspirowana Trzema Prawami Robotyki Asimova:
Instrukcja [THREE: A Cooperative Game Inspired by Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics
– Instructions], https://gratrzy.wordpress.com/. [accessed: 14.02.2025].
Łupkowski, P., & Jański-Mały, F. (2020). The more you see me the more you like me: influencing
the negative attitude towards interactions with robots. Journal of Automation Mobile
Robotics and Intelligent Systems, 14(3):10–17. DOI: 10.14313/JAMRIS/3-2020/27.
Łupkowski P., & Wasielewska A. (2019). The Cooperative Board Game THREE. A Test Field
for Experimenting with Moral Dilemmas of Human-Robot Interaction. Ethics in Progress
10(2), 82–97.
109
Paweł Łupkowski, Aleksandra Wasielewska
Manera V., Petit P. D., Derreumaux A., Orvieto I., Romagnoli M., Lyttle G., Renaud D.
& Robert, P. H. Philippe. (2015). ‘Kitchen and cooking,’a serious game for mild cognitive
impairment and Alzheimer’s disease: a pilot study. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 7, 24.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00024.
Mara M., & Appel M. (2015). Science fiction reduces the eeriness of android robots: A field
experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2015.01.007
McCauley L. (2007). ‘AI armageddon and the three laws of robotics’, Ethics and Information
Technology 9, 153–164.
Mubin O., Obaid M., & Sandoval E. (2015). Using YouTube to Understand Human Perception
of Real and Fictional Robots.
Murphy R., Woods D. (2009). ‘Beyond Asimov: The three laws of responsible robotics’, Intelligent
Systems. IEEE 24, 14–20.
Palomäki J., Kunnari A., Drosinou M., Koverola M., Lehtonen N., Halonen J., Repo M., Laakasuo
M. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of the uncanny valley effect. Heliyon 4(11),
e00939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00939.
Pochwatko G., Giger J. C., Różańska-Walczuk M., Świdrak J., Kukiełka K., Możaryn J.,
& Piçarra N. (2015). Polish version of the negative attitude toward robots scale
(NARS-PL). Journal of Automation Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems, 9(3), 65–72.
https://doi.org/10.14313/JAMRIS_3-2015/25.
Ratajczyk D., Dakowski J., Łupkowski P. (2023). The Importance of Beliefs in Human Nature
Uniqueness for Uncanny Valley in Virtual Reality and On-Screen. International Journal
of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(12), 3081–3091. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.
2023.2179216.
Reich-Stiebert N., Eyssel F., Hohnemann C. (2019)., Involve the user! Changing attitudes
toward robots by user participation in a robot prototyping process, Computers in Human
Behavior, 91, 290-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.041.
Riek L. D., Adams A., & Robinson P. (2011). Exposure to cinematic depictions of robots
and attitudes towards them. Proceedings of international conference on human-robot
interaction, workshop on expectations and intuitive human-robot interaction, 6.
Rosenberg M.J., & Hovland C.I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of
attitude. In: M.J. Rosenberg et al. (Eds.). Attitude organization and change (pp. 233–239).
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sawyer R. (2007). ‘Robot ethics’, Science, 318, 1037.
Slocombe W. (2016). What science fiction tells us about our trouble with AI, https://
theconversation.com/what-science-fiction-tells-us-about-our-trouble-with-ai-58543.
[accessed: 14.02.2025].
Šisler V., Buchtová M., Brom C., & Hlávka Z. (2012). Towards empirical–theoretical framework
for investigating effects of serious games: A pilot study of Europe 2045, In: Applied
Playfulness. Proceedings of the Vienna Games Conference 2011: Future and Reality of
Gaming, Vienna, Austria, 16–36.
Sosnowska J., Mamak K. (2018). ‘Jak karać robota, który popełnił przestępstwo?’, http://wyborcza.
pl/Jutronauci/7,165057,24044768,prawo-karne-przyszlosci.html [accessed: 14.02.2025].
Słomczyński M. (2014). ‘Dydaktyczne aspekty projektowania gier’, Homo Ludens, 6(1), 141–152.
Stafford R. Q., MacDonald B. A., Jayawardena C., Wegner D. M., & Broadbent E. (2014). Does
the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an
eldercare robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6, 17–32.
110
THREE: An Educational Game Inspired by Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics
Sullins J. P. (2011). When is a robot a moral agent? Machine Eethics, 6, 151–161.
Sundar S. S., Waddell T. F., & Jung E. H. (2016). The Hollywood Robot Syndrome media
effects on older adults’ attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions. 2016 11th ACM/
IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 343–350. https://doi.
org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451771
Świątek P. (2014). ‘Rodzaje gier użytkowych (serious games) oraz ich zastosowanie w edukacji:
opis zjawiska’ [Types of Serious Games and Their Applications in Education:
A Description of the Phenomenon]. Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis.
Studia de Cultura 1(6) Edukacja Kulturowa. Ujęcie monograficzne, 95–105.
Treher E. N. (2011). ‘Learning with board games. tools for learning and retention’, The Learning
Key.
Veruggio G. (2006, December). The EURON roboethics roadmap. In 2006 6th IEEE-RAS
international conference on humanoid robots (pp. 612–617). IEEE.
Wajda N. (2014). ‘Gry kooperacyjne na zajęciach języka obcego dla przedszkolaków’ [Cooperative
Games in Foreign Language Classes for Preschoolers], Homo Ludens, 1(6), 199–214.
Wasielewska A. (2021). Expectations towards the Morality of Robots: An Overview of Empirical
Studies. Ethics in Progress, 12(1), 134–151.
Wasielewska A., & Łupkowski P. (2021). Nieoczywiste relacje z technologią. Przegląd badań na
temat ludzkich postaw wobec robotów. [Not So Obvious Relationships with Technology:
A Review of Research on Human Attitudes Towards Robots] Człowiek i Społeczeństwo,
51, 165–187.
Wawrzeńczyk-Kulik M. (2013). Symulacyjna gra decyzyjna jako narzędzie wspomagające
nauczanie w ramach przedmiotu „Podstawy przedsiębiorczości” ’ [Simulation-Based
Decision Game as a Tool for Supporting Teaching in the Subject „Fundamentals of
Entrepreneurship”], Zeszyty Naukowe WSEI seria: Ekonomia 6(1).
Weybright E. H., Dattilo J., & Rusch F. R. (2010). Effects of an interactive video game (Nintendo
Wii™) on older women with mild cognitive impairment. Therapeutic Recreation Journal,
44(4), 271.
Wouters P., Nimwegen C. van, Oostendorp H. van, Spek E. D. van der (2013). A meta analysis
of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105(2), 249.
Wynsberghe A. van & Sharkey N. (2020). Special issue on responsible robotics: Introduction.
Ethics and Information Technology, 22, 281–282.
Yamaguchi H., Maki Y., & Takahashi K. (2011). Rehabilitation for dementia using enjoyable
video-sports games. International Psychogeriatrics 23(4), 674–676. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1041610210001912.