Archive 02.11.2017

I was surprised to hear that a robot named Sophia was granted citizenship by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The announcement last week followed the Kingdom’s commitment of US$500 billion to build a new city powered by robotics and renewables.

One of the most honourable concepts for a human being, to be a citizen and all that brings with it, has been given to a machine. As a professor who works daily on making AI and autonomous systems more trustworthy, I don’t believe human society is ready yet for citizen robots.

To grant a robot citizenship is a declaration of trust in a technology that I believe is not yet trustworthy. It brings social and ethical concerns that we as humans are not yet ready to manage.

Who is Sophia?

Sophia is a robot developed by the Hong Kong-based company Hanson Robotics. Sophia has a female face that can display emotions. Sophia speaks English. Sophia makes jokes. You could have a reasonably intelligent conversation with Sophia.

Sophia’s creator is Dr David Hanson, a 2007 PhD graduate from the University of Texas.

Sophia is reminiscent of “Johnny 5”, the first robot to become a US citizen in the 1986 movie Short Circuit. But Johnny 5 was a mere idea, something dreamt up by comic science fiction writers S. S. Wilson and Brent Maddock.

Did the writers imagine that in around 30 years their fiction would become a reality?

Risk to citizenship

Citizenship – in my opinion, the most honourable status a country grants for its people – is facing an existential risk.

As a researcher who advocates for designing autonomous systems that are trustworthy, I know the technology is not ready yet.

We have many challenges that we need to overcome before we can truly trust these systems. For example, we don’t yet have reliable mechanisms to assure us that these intelligent systems will always behave ethically and in accordance with our moral values, or to protect us against them taking a wrong action with catastrophic consequences.

Here are three reasons I think it is a premature decision to grant Sophia citizenship.

1. Defining identity

Citizenship is granted to a unique identity.

Each of us, humans I mean, possesses a unique signature that distinguishes us from any other human. When we get through customs without talking to a human, our identity is automatically established using an image of our face, iris and fingerprint. My PhD student establishes human identity by analysing humans’ brain waves.

What gives Sophia her identity? Her MAC address? A barcode, a unique skin mark, an audio mark in her voice, an electromagnetic signature similar to human brain waves?

These and other technological identity management protocols are all possible, but they do not establish Sophia’s identity – they can only establish hardware identity. What then is Sophia’s identity?

To me, identity is a multidimensional construct. It sits at the intersection of who we are biologically, cognitively, and as defined by every experience, culture, and environment we encountered. It’s not clear where Sophia fits in this description.

2. Legal rights

For the purposes of this article, let’s assume that Sophia the citizen robot is able to vote. But who is making the decision on voting day – Sophia or the manufacturer?

Presumably also Sophia the citizen is “liable” to pay income taxes because Sophia has a legal identity independent of its creator, the company.

Sophia must also have the right for equal protection similar to other citizens by law.

Consider this hypothetical scenario: a policeman sees Sophia and a woman each being attacked by a person. That policeman can only protect one of them: who should it be? Is it right if the policeman chooses Sophia because Sophia walks on wheels and has no skills for self-defence?

Today, the artificial intelligence (AI) community is still debating what principles should govern the design and use of AI, let alone what the laws should be.

The most recent list proposes 23 principles known as the Asilomar AI Principles. Examples of these include: Failure Transparency (ascertaining the cause if an AI system causes harm); Value Alignment (aligning the AI system’s goals with human values); and Recursive Self-Improvement (subjecting AI systems with abilities to self-replicate to strict safety and control measures).

3. Social rights

Let’s talk about relationships and reproduction.

As a citizen, will Sophia, the humanoid emotional robot, be allowed to “marry” or “breed” if Sophia chooses to? Students from North Dakota State University have taken steps to create a robot that self-replicates using 3D printing technologies.

If more robots join Sophia as citizens of the world, perhaps they too could claim their rights to self-replicate into other robots. These robots would also become citizens. With no resource constraints on how many children each of these robots could have, they could easily exceed the human population of a nation.

As voting citizens, these robots could create societal change. Laws might change, and suddenly humans could find themselves in a place they hadn’t imagined.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Twenty-eight different startups were funded in October cumulatively raising $862 million, up from $507 million in September. Three of the top four fundings were for startups involved in the self-driving process. An additional five lower-amount startups were also funded for self-driving applications or components along with two of the six acquisitions.

Six acquisitions were reported during the month including Delphi Automotive’s buying nuTonomy for $450 million and Boeing’s acquisition of 550-employee Aurora Flight Sciences.

On the IPO front, Altair Engineering raised $156 million and Restoration Robotics raised $25 million when both went live on the NASDAQ stock exchange this month.

Fundings

• Mapbox, a Washington, DC and San Francisco provider of nav systems for car companies and others involved in autonomous vehicles, raised $164 million in a Series C round led by the SoftBank Vision Fund, with participation from existing investors including Foundry Group, DFJ Growth, DBL Partners, and Thrive Capital. “Location data is central and mission critical to the development of the world’s most exciting technologies,” said Rajeev Misra, who helps oversee SoftBank’s Vision Fund.
• Element AI, a Canadian startup providing learning platform solutions for self-driving and advanced manufacturing, raised $135 CAD million (around $105 million) in a Series A round (in June) led by Data Collective, a SV-based venture capital firm, and included participation by Fidelity Investments Canada, National Bank of Canada, Intel Capital, and Real Ventures.
• Ninebot, the Chinese consumer products company that bought out Segway and raised $80 million in 2015, raised another $100 million in a Series C round  from the SDIC Fund Management Co. and the China Mobile Fund.
• Horizon Robotics, another Chinese startup, raised $100 million in a Series A round led by Intel Capital with participation by Wu Capital, Morningside Venture Capital, Linear Venture, Hillhouse Capital and Harvest Investments. Horizon is developing self-driving vehicle autopilot and self-navigating consumer and neural network chips. Wendell Brooks, Intel SVP and President of Intel Capital which invested in Horizon said, “By 2020, every autonomous vehicle on the road will create 4 TB of data per day. A million self-driving cars will create the same amount of data every day as 3 billion people. As Intel transitions to a data company, Intel Capital is actively investing in startups across the technology spectrum that can help expand the data ecosystem and pathfind important new technologies.”
• Innoviz Technologies, an Israel-based developer of LiDAR sensing technology for autonomous vehicles, raised $73 million in Series B funding. Investors include Samsung Catalyst and SoftBank Ventures Korea.
• Zume Pizza, the Silicon Valley robotic pizza making startup, raised $48 million in a Series B funding. Investors in the round were not detailed. Zume is already delivering pizzas in Silicon Valley. It uses an assembly line of robots to flatten dough into circles, spread sauce and cheese, and slide the pies into and out of an 800 degree oven. Pizzas finish cooking in ovens inside delivery trucks.
• Momenta AI, a Beijing autonomous driving tech startup using machine vision (rather than LiDAR), raised $46 in a Series B round led by NIO Capital, Sequoia Capital China, Hillhouse Capital and Cathay Innovation Fund.
• Wonder Workshop, previously named Play-i, a Silicon Valley and Chinese educational robot startup, raised $41 million in a Series C round from a series of investors including Tencent, TAL Education Group, MindWorks Ventures, Madrona Venture Group, Softbank Korea, VTRON Group, TCL Capital, Sinovation Ventures, Bright Success, WI Harper, and CRV. Wonder Workshop’s Dot and Dash robots are in use by thousands of student groups and schools around the world. “We founded Wonder Workshop to provide all children — girls and boys of all ages — with the skills needed to succeed in the future economy. This round of financing will allow us to continue on our mission to inspire the inventors of tomorrow,” said Vikas Gupta, CEO.
• FogHorn Systems, a Silicon Valley smart manufacturing software startup, raised $30 million in a Series B round led by Intel Capital and Saudi Aramco Energy Ventures with new investor Honeywell Ventures and all previous investors participating, including Series A investors March Capital Partners, GE, Dell Technologies Capital, Robert Bosch Venture Capital, Yokogawa Electric Corporation, Darling Ventures and seed investor The Hive.
• Nanotronic Imaging, an Ohio testing solutions provider, raised $30 million in a Series D funding led by Investment Corp of Dubai and Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund.
• Wandercraft, a French rehabilitation exoskeleton startup, raised $17.8 million in a Series B round from XAnge, Innovation Capital, Idinvest Partners, Cemag Invest and BPIFrance.
• Ever AI, a San Francisco startup developing facial recognition, announced that they had raised $16 million in a Series B funding led by Icon Ventures with participation from Felicis Ventures and Khosla Ventures. On the same day SoftBank announced their intention to use Ever AI’s facial recognition platform as a new feature for their Pepper robot.
• Built Robotics, a San Francisco startup developing a self-driving kit for construction equipment – a self-driving excavator – raised $15 million in a Series A round led by NEA (New Enterprise Associates) with participation by Founders Fund, Lemnos and angel investors including Eric Stromberg, Maria Thomas, Carl Bass, Edward Lando and Justin Kan.
• Veo Robotics, a Cambridge, MA-based vision systems startup, raised $12 million in a Series A funding. Lux Capital and GV led the round, and were joined by unnamed investors including Next47.
• Riverfield Surgical Robot Lab, a Japanese startup, raised $10 million in a Series B round led by Toray Engineering and included SBI Investment, Jafco and Beyond Next Ventures.
• Beijing Beehive Agriculture Technology Co. raised $9.4 million in an A funding round led by Tendence Capital and other unnamed sources.  The funding marks the company’s second financing round after it raised around $5 million from e-commerce giant JD.com Inc. and others in its pre-A funding.
• Titan Medical, a Canadian robotic single-port surgery device developer, raised $9.1 million: $2.6 million by floating 13.4 million common shares in a private placement to more than a dozen robotic surgeons in the US and Canada and an additional $6.5 million from the early exercise of purchase warrants for 42.6 million common shares.
• Robart, an Austria-based developer of AI and navigation intelligence for autonomous consumer robots, raised $7.2 million in a Series B funding. CM-CIC Innovation led the round, and was joined by Innovacom, Robert Bosch Venture Capital and SEB Alliance.
• Nileworks,  a Japanese drone crop spraying startup, raised $7.1 million from a group of Japanese investors including public-private partnership the Innovation Network Corporation of Japan, agricultural chemical maker Kumiai Chemical Industry Co., Sumitomo Corporation and its subsidiary  Sumitomo Chemical Co., the Japanese National Federation of Agricultural Co-operative Associations, and The Norinchukin Bank. When the product goes on sale in 2019 the company will target rice farmers in Japan.
• Impossible Objects, an Illinois provider of 3D printing tech, raised $6.4 million in a Series A funding led by OCA Ventures and joined by IDEA Fund Partners, Mason Avenue Investments, Huizenga Capital Management and Inflection Equity Partners.
• AeroFarms, the indoor vertical farming startup which raised $34 million reported earlier this year, rounded out their $40 million Series D funding with $6 million from Ikea Group and chef David Chang of the Momofuku Group. AeroFarms just built its 9th indoor farm in Newark, NJ.
• Blickfeld, a Munich-based LiDAR maker for autonomous driving, raised $4.25 million in seed funding. Investors include Unternehmertum Venture Capital Partners, High-Tech Gruenderfonds, Fluxunit – OSRAM Ventures and Tengelmann Ventures.
• Realtime Robotics, a Boston motion planning and control startup, raised $2 million in seed funding from SPARX Group, Scrum Ventures, and Toyota AI Ventures.
• Vitae Industries, a Rhode Island pharma dispensing robot maker, raised $1.8 million in seed funding from Lerer Hippeau Ventures and Slater Technology Fund. Other investors in the round included Techstars, BoxGroup, Compound and Founder Collective.
• Acutronic Robotics, a Swiss startup that last year acquired Spanish component maker Erle Robotics, raised an undisclosed amount from Sony in a Series A funding round. Sony will also adopt Acutronic’s Hardware Robot Operating System (H-ROS), for use in its own robotics division. Sony’s strategic use of the H-ROS platform in its own operations, and DARPA’s prior investment, suggest there’s a lot of interest in H-ROS for unifying legacy robotic systems from old-line robot providers.
• Bharati Robotic Systems, a Pune, India-based industrial robotic cleaning startup, raised an undisclosed amount of funding from its existing investors – Society For Innovation and Entrepreneurship (SINE, IITB Incubator), and other angel investors.
• IUVO, an Italian exoskeleton and wearable prosthetics spin-off from the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, has received a joint investment from robot manufacturer Comau and Össur, a global provider of non-invasive orthopedics. No financial amounts were provided however Comau and Össur will now hold a majority share of IUVO. “This joint venture represents a key step toward the creation of wearable robotic exoskeletons that can enhance human mobility and quality of life,” emphasized Mauro Fenzi, CEO of Comau. “By uniting the know-how and enabling technologies of the various partners, we are in a unique position to extend the use of robotics beyond manufacturing and toward a truly progressive global reality. I believe the differentiating factor of a project like IUVO is the combination of Comau’s automation skills and Össur’s extensive experience in bionics and bracing to enable the production of products, such as the exoskeletons, and to be able to demonstrate the benefits of robotics”.
• Ultimaker, a manufacturer of professional desktop 3D printers and employer of over 300, raised an undisclosed amount from NPM Capital, a Benelux investment company.

Acquisitions

• Delphi Automotive, a UK Tier 1 automotive supplier, acquired nuTonomy, a Boston self-driving ride sharing startup, for $450 million. nuTonomy, a spin-off from MIT and Singapore and with funding from Ford, has grown to 100 employees including 70 engineers and scientists. The acquisition will double Delphi’s autonomous driving applications team.
• HTI Cybernetics, a Michigan industrial robotics integrator and contract manufacturer, has been acquired by Chongqing Nanshang Investment Group for around $50 million. HTI provides robotic welding systems to the auto industry and also has a contract welding services facility in Mexico.
• Ridecell, a San Francisco mobility platform provider of car sharing, ride sharing and autonomous vehicles software, has acquired Auro Robotics, a Silicon Valley self-driving vehicle startup with shuttles operating on the Santa Clara University campus, for an undisclosed amount but which TheInformation estimates to be around $20 million.
• Applied Automation, a UK components manufacturer of automation and control equipment, is changing and upgrading their status to include becoming an integrator of industrial and collaborative robots and, through the acquisition of PTG Precision Engineers, has gained talented engineering manpower to augment their sales/integration efforts. PTG is located across the street from Applied. No financial details about the acquisition were provided by either party.
• General Motors acquired Pasadena-based Strobe, a vision systems startup developing an optical micro-oscillator for LiDAR timing, navigation and sensing applications, for an undisclosed amount. Strobe will join the Cruise Automation self-driving group.
• Boeing is acquiring Aurora Flight Sciences, a 550 employee Virginia-based UAS provider, for an undisclosed amount. “Since its inception, Aurora has been focused on the development of innovative aircraft that leverage autonomy to make aircraft smarter,” said John Langford, Aurora Flight Sciences founder and chief executive officer. “As an integral part of Boeing, our pioneered technologies of long-endurance aircraft, robotic co-pilots, and autonomous electric VTOLs will be transitioned into world-class products for the global infrastructure.”

IPOs

• Restoration Robotics, a San Jose, Calif.-based company focused on robotics that assist doctors in hair transplant procedures, raised $25 million in an upsized offering of 3.6 million shares priced at $7. In 2016, the company posted revenue of $15.6 million and a loss of $21.8 million. HAIR is now listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange.
• Altair Engineering, a Troy, Mich.-based engineering software maker, raised $156 million in an IPO of 12 million shares at $13. The stock (ALTR) is now trading on Nasdaq. Altair develops simulation and design software for industrial applications, automobiles, consumer goods and all types of robotics.
• Nilfisk Holdings, a Danish manufacturer of industrial cleaning machines including a new line of autonomous cleaners, was spun off from NKT A/S, a Danish conglomerate, and went public on the NASDAQ Copenhagen exchange as NLFSK. Financial details were not disclosed.

The internet hummed last week with reports that “Humans Still Make Better Surgeons Than Robots.” Stanford University Medical Center set off the tweetstorm with its seemingly scathing report on robotic surgery. When reading the research of 24,000 patients with kidney cancer, I concluded that the problem lied with the humans overcharging patients versus any technology flaw. In fact, the study praised robotic surgery for complicated procedures and suggested the fault lied with hospitals unnecessarily pushing robotic surgery for simple operations over conventional methods, which led to “increases in operating times and cost.”

Dr. Benjamin Chung, the author of the report, stated that the expenses were due to either “the time needed for robotic operating room setup” or the surgeon’s “learning curve” with the new technology. Chung defended the use of robotic surgery by claiming that “surgical robots are helpful because they offer more dexterity than traditional laparoscopic instrumentation and use a three-dimensional, high-resolution camera to visualize and magnify the operating field. Some procedures, such as the removal of the prostate or the removal of just a portion of the kidney, require a high degree of delicate maneuvering and extensive internal suturing that render the robot’s assistance invaluable.”

Chung’s concern was due to the dramatic increase in hospitals selling robotic-assisted surgeries to patients rather than more traditional methods for kidney removals. “Although the laparoscopic procedure has been standard care for a radical nephrectomy for many years, we saw an increase in the use of robotic-assisted approaches, and by 2015 these had surpassed the number of conventional laparoscopic procedures,” explains Chung. “We found that, although there was no statistical difference in outcome or length of hospital stay, the robotic-assisted surgeries cost more and had a higher probability of prolonged operative time.”

The dexterity and precision of robotic instruments has been proven in live operating theaters for years, as well as multitude concept videos on the internet of fruit being autonomously stitched up. Dr. Joan Savall, also of Stanford, developed a robotic system that is even capable of performing (unmanned) brain surgery on a live fly. For years, medical students have been ripping the heads off of the drosophila with tweezers in the hopes of learning more about the insect’s anatomy. Instead, Savall’s machine gently follows the fly using computer vision to precisely target its thorax; literally a moving bullseye the size of a period. The robot is so careful that the insect is unfazed and flies off after the procedure. Clearly, the robot is quicker and more exacting than even the most careful surgeon. According to journal Nature Methods, the system can operate on 100 flies an hour.

Last week, Dr. Dennis Fowler of Columbia University and CEO of Platform Imaging, said that he imagines a future whereby the surgeon will program the robot to finish the procedure and stitch up the patient. He said senior surgeons already pass such mundane tasks to their medical students, ‘so why not a robot?’ Platform Imaging is an innovative startup that aims to reduce the amount of personnel or equipment a hospital needs when performing laparoscopic surgeries. Long-term, it plans to add snake robots to its flexible camera to empower surgeons with the greatest amount of maneuverability. In addition to the obvious health benefits to the patient, robotic surgeries like Dr. Fowler’s will reduce the number of workplace injuries to laparoscopic surgeons. According to a University of Maryland study, 87% of surgeons who perform laparoscopic procedures complain of eye strain, hand, neck, back and leg pain, headaches, finger calluses, disc problems, shoulder muscle spasm and carpel tunnel syndrome. Many times these injuries are so debilitating that they lead to early retirement. The author of the report, Dr. Adrian Park, explains “In laparoscopic surgery, we are very limited in our degrees of movement, but in open surgery we have a big incision, we put our hands in, we’re directly connected with the target anatomy. With laparoscopic surgery, we operate by looking at a video screen, often keeping our neck and posture in an awkward position for hours. Also, we’re standing for extended periods of time with our shoulders up and our arms out, holding and maneuvering long instruments through tiny, fixed ports.” In Dr. Fowler’s view, robotic surgery is a game changer by expanding the longevity of a physician’s career.

At the children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C, the Smart Tissue Autonomous Robot (STAR) provided a sneak peak to the future of surgery. Using advanced 3D imaging systems and precise force-sensing instruments the STAR was able to autonomously stitch up soft tissue samples (of a living pig above) with sub-millimeter accuracy that is by far greater than even the most precise human surgeons. According to the study published in the journal Science Translational Medicine, there are 45 million soft tissue surgeries performed each year in the United States.

Dr. Peter Kim, STAR’s creator, says “Imagine that you need a surgery, or your loved one needs a surgery. Wouldn’t it be critical to have the best surgeon and the best surgical techniques available?” Dr. Kim espouses, “Even though we take pride in our craft of doing surgical procedures, to have a machine or tool that works with us in ensuring better outcome safety and reducing complications—[there] would be a tremendous benefit.”

“Now driverless cars are coming into our lives,” explains Dr. Kim. “It started with self-parking, then a technology that tells you not to go into the wrong lane. Soon you have a car that can drive by itself.” Similarly, Dr. Kim and Dr. Fowler envision a time in the near future when surgical robots could go from assisting humans to being overseen by humans. Eventually, Dr. Kim says they may one day take over. After all, Dr Kim’s  “programmed the best surgeon’s techniques, based on consensus and physics, into the machine.”

The idea of full autonomy in the operating room and on the road raises a litany of ethical concerns, such as the acceptable failure rate of machines. The value proposition for self-driving cars is very clear – road safety. In 2015, there were approximately 35,000 road fatalities; self-driving cars will reduce that figure dramatically. However, what is unclear is what will be the new acceptable rate of fatalities with machines. Professor Amnon Shashua, of Hebrew University and founder of Mobileye, has struggled with this dilemma for years. “If you drop 35,000 fatalities down to 10,000 – even though from a rational point of view it sounds like a good thing, society will not live with that many people killed by a computer,” explains Dr. Shashua. While everyone would agree that zero failure is the most desired outcome in reality Shashua says, “this will never happen.” He elaborates, “What you need to show is that the probability of an accident drops by two to three orders of magnitude. If you drop [35,000 fatalities] down to 200, and those 200 are because of computer errors, then society will accept these robotic cars.”

Dr. Iyad Rahwan of MIT is much more to the point, “If we cannot engender trust in the new system, we risk the entire autonomous vehicle enterprise.” According to his research, “Most people want to live in a world where cars will minimize casualties. But everybody wants their own car to protect them at all costs.” Dr. Rahwan is referring to the Old Trolly Problem – does the machine save its driver or the pedestrian when encountered with a choice? Dr. Rahwan declares, “This is a big social dilemma. Who will buy a car that is programmed to kill them in some instances? Who will insure such a car?” Last May at the Paris Motor Show Christoph von Hugo, of Daimler Benz, emphatically answered: “If you know you can save at least one person, at least save that one. Save the one in the car.”

The ethics of unmanned systems and more will be discussed at the next RobotLab forum on “The Future of Autonomous Cars” with Steve Girsky formerly of General Motors – November 29th @ 6pm, WeWork Grand Central NYC, RSVP. 

My previous post on the House and Senate automated driving bills (HB 3388 and SB 1885) concluded by noting that, in addition to the federal government, states and the municipalities within them also play an important role in regulating road safety.These numerous functions involve, among others, designing and maintaining roads, setting and enforcing traffic laws, licensing and punishing drivers, registering and inspecting vehicles, requiring and regulating automotive insurance, and enabling victims to recover from the drivers or manufacturers responsible for their injuries.

Unfortunately, the Senate bill could preempt many of these functions. The House bill contains modest preemption language and a savings clause that admirably tries to clarify the line between federal and state roles. The Senate bill, in contrast, currently contains a breathtakingly broad preemption provision that was proposed in committee markup by, curiously, a Democratic senator.

(I say “currently” for two reasons. First, a single text of the bill is not available online; only the original text plus the marked-up texts for the Senate Commerce Committee’s amendments to that original have been posted. Second, whereas HB 3388 has passed the full House, SB 1885 is still making its way through the Senate.)

Under one of these amendments to the Senate bill, “[n]o State or political subdivision of a State may adopt, maintain, or enforce any law, rule, or standard regulating the design, construction, or performance of a highly automated vehicle or automated driving system with respect to any of the safety evaluation report subject areas.” These areas are system safety, data recording, cybersecurity, human-machine interface, crashworthiness, capabilities, post-crash behavior, accounting for applicable laws, and automation function.

A savings provision like the one in the House bill was in the original Senate bill but apparently dropped in committee.

A plain reading of this language suggests that all kinds of state and local laws would be void in the context of automated driving. Restrictions on what kind of data can be collected by motor vehicles? Fine for conventional driving, but preempted for automated driving. Penalties for speeding? Fine for conventional driving, but preempted for automated driving. Deregistration of an unsafe vehicle? Same.

The Senate language could have an even more subtly dramatic effect on state personal injury law. Under existing federal law, FMVSS compliance “does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” (The U.S. Supreme Court has fabulously muddied what this provision actually means by, in two cases, reaching essentially opposite conclusions about whether a jury could find a manufacturer liable under state law for injuries caused by a vehicle design that was consistent with applicable FMVSS.)

The Senate bill preserves this statutory language (whatever it means) and even adds a second sentence providing that “nothing” in the automated driving preemption section “shall exempt a person from liability at common law or under a State statute authorizing a civil remedy for damages or other monetary relief.”

Although this would seem to reinforce the power of a jury to determine what is reasonable in a civil suit, the Senate bill makes this second sentence “subject to” the breathtakingly broad preemption language described above. On its plain meaning, this language accordingly restricts rather than respects state tort and product liability law.

This is confusing (whether intentionally or unintentionally), so consider a stylized illustration:

1) You may not use the television.

2) Subject to (1), you may watch The Simpsons.

This language probably bars you from watching The Simpsons (at least on the television). If the intent were instead to permit you to do so, the language would be:

1) You may not use the television.

2) Notwithstanding (1), you may watch The Simpsons.

The amendment as proposed could have said “notwithstanding” instead of “subject to.” It did not.

I do not know the intent of the senators who voted for this automated driving bill and for this amendment to it. They may have intended a result other than the one suggested by their language. Indeed, they may have even addressed these issues without recording the result in the documents subsequently released. If so, they should make these changes, or they should make their changes public.

And if not, everyone from Congress to City Hall should consider what this massive preemption would mean.

Happy Halloween everyone! Here’s a selection of this year’s robot videos and tweets to get you in the mood.

Does this robot look like a #Halloween creature? Maybe, but this Automaton Rover could handle the heat on Venus: https://t.co/6SZUUQTqjC pic.twitter.com/2LrkNwbPTY

— NASA Technology (@NASA_Technology) October 31, 2017

Happy Halloween from the GRASP Lab! pic.twitter.com/EdHSpd1OmU

— GRASP Laboratory (@GRASPlab) October 31, 2017

Trick or treat @PepperTheRobot? Happy #Halloween2017 pic.twitter.com/l5cb9NxBcc

— Intuitive Robots (@IntuitiveRobots) October 31, 2017

#Gitas are ready for halloween. Time for our Halloween bash! @P_F_F #Robots pic.twitter.com/XFpCi78EwA

— Sasha Hoffman (@sashaphoffman) October 31, 2017

HaPPy HaLLoWeeN! #HappyHalloween #TrickorTreats #pepperrobot #robot pic.twitter.com/KZdaV7m2jF

— Pepper (@PepperTheRobot) October 31, 2017

Humans aren't the only ones having fun for #Halloween here on campus. This #robot in @hiskov lab is asking this important question: why did the chicken perch on the robot? We think the answer is to get some perspective. But feel free to suggest a better one. #ucsandiegorobotics pic.twitter.com/XWIIpHoZJ9

— UCSD Engineering (@UCSDJacobs) October 31, 2017

Amazon Kiva robot working hard on #halloween #bepeculiar pic.twitter.com/OnusT1sSV4

— Jaime Lopez (@DevWithTheHair) October 31, 2017

Satirist dresses as 'Sophia the Robot' for #halloween after automaton declared a citizen of Saudi Arabia: https://t.co/YVW4Sk0CaJ @NMofty pic.twitter.com/CTVmjGMGt2

— AP Images (@AP_Images) October 31, 2017