Back to the database
Record STMT-WB2DE10Advisory

Ethics of Robotic Deception

Opinion ProfessionalGlobalunknown

This opinion article explores the ethical implications of teaching robots to deceive humans. It discusses military acceptance of deception alongside civil concerns, contrasting deontological views against consequentialist benefits in areas like search and rescue or dementia patient management. Ultimately, the author calls for greater discussion and potential guidelines regarding the risks of robotic deception.

Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.

Who issued it

Institute of Electrical and Electronics EngineersProfessional · US
Publisher
Legal forceAdvisory
Under whose authorityProfessional
Judged fromfull text

Who it governs

Researchers and academicsGeneral publicProfessional group

Researchers, ethicists, and technologists interested in the moral implications of autonomous systems and human-robot interaction.

Sectors
Research and science · robotics researchDefence and security · military applications

What the document contains

What's covered

The article covers the arguments surrounding robotic deception, referencing past experiments with bio-inspired deceit, comparing military versus civilian applications, and highlighting the absence of governance or guidelines in this research area.

What's missing

It contains no formal definitions, binding regulations, enforcement mechanisms, or concrete code of conduct regarding AI and robotic deception.

Key takeaways
  • Robotic deception is an emerging capability being studied in experimental settings such as pursuit-evasion and human-robot interaction.
  • While military deception is widely accepted and practiced, non-military deception raises significant ethical concerns under both Kantian and consequentialist frameworks.
  • Potential non-military benefits of deception include aiding in search and rescue operations or managing patients with dementia.
  • As of 2018, there are absolute no guidelines for researchers regarding robotic deception, leaving a potential need for internal or external rules.
Principles it states
Kant's categorical imperative indicates that lying is fundamentally wrong.Consequentialist perspectives suggest there are times when deception has societal value.
Outline
not stated
Issued31 August 2018
Length1,143 words · 2 pages
FormatNot recorded
Scopeglobal

How it scores

Pending review

Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.

Accountability

0/5

Clear responsibility for AI outcomes

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-23

Fairness

0/5

Non-discrimination and equitable treatment

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-23

Human Oversight

0/5

Humans remain in control of consequential decisions

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-23

Privacy

0/5

Protection of personal data and private life

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-23

Transparency

0/5

Openness about how AI systems work and are used

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-23

Enforcement

0/5

Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-23

Impact Assessment

0/5

Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-23

Topics

robotics ethics deception military_ai human_robot_interaction