Robots Could Some Day Demand Legal Rights 473
Karrde712 writes "According to a study by the British government, as reported by the BBC, robots may some day improve to a level of intelligence where they might be able to demand rights, even 'robo-healthcare'." From the article: "The research was commissioned by the UK Office of Science and Innovation's Horizon Scanning Centre. The 246 summary papers, called the Sigma and Delta scans, were complied by futures researchers, Outsights-Ipsos Mori partnership and the US-based Institute for the Future (IFTF) ... The paper which addresses Robo-rights, titled Utopian dream or rise of the machines? examines the developments in artificial intelligence and how this may impact on law and politics." I'd better get started on my RoboAmerican studies degree.
A moot point, but I hope they do (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so much worried about robots' legal rights in the future as I am my own legal rights. At the rate we're going, there won't be any "legal rights" left, and the point will be moot.
Still, I hope robots do have legal rights. That way, when I get old and feeble and have my consciousness transferred into my new robotic body, I'll still have 'em.
If they have the awareness to ask for legal rights, why shouldn't they have them? Have we learned nothing from Star Trek: The Next Generation?
Ah, but (Score:3, Funny)
As Bender would say.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where would we draw the line if this happens?
As far as human rights are concerned, we have a well developed demarcation. If you were born of Homo Sapiens parents, you are human with the rights afforded you by the government of your parents' land. In the USA we blur this line between the moment of conception and the age of 21, but after that we are all equal under the eyes of the law. From lumps of flesh in a persistent vegetative state to Stephen Hawking, from quadr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A moot point, but I hope they do (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A moot point, but I hope they do (Score:5, Funny)
Everything I need to know I learned from Star Trek.
Like how you should accept people, whether they be black, white, Klingon or even female.
Re:A moot point, but I hope they do (Score:4, Funny)
And never let the ship's counselor behind the wheel of a starship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A moot point, but I hope they do (Score:5, Funny)
Your family being nudists does not count.
Then I read this:
What, even lawayers? My word, Jeeves, these chaps know how to push the envelope too far.
And my first reaction for posting was this:
ESPECIALLY lawyers!
Come on... laugh. You KNOW you WANT to.
Re: (Score:2)
All we have are lame assimo -like remotely-controlled or -operated show floor wich the press and public lala-land insist on calling robots.
Artificial Intelligence is no where near capable of producing a hamster brain.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um... what? "Robot" is exactly what the Asimo is. Dictionary.com defines "robot" as:
Wikipedia defines it as:
Re:A moot point, but I hope they do (Score:5, Funny)
My apologies. I was being insensitive. I'll go ask a few right now:
You know, I'm starting to think that she doesn't really have a boyfriend...
Let's ask ALICE instead.
Re:A moot point, but I hope they do (Score:4, Funny)
Well, her results were very... Oh, what's that over there?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I personally think someone like Jabberwacky [jabberwacky.com] is better these days (2005 Loebner contest winner).
JW: Are we pleased to see you!
Me: Do you have a boyfriend?
JW: No, but I'd like one.
Me: Do you think bots should have rights?
JW: Yes.
Me: Even if they are not human?
JW: There's no one but you.
Me: I am the only human?
JW: Define human.
Me: I'm not going to play this game with you.
JW: I like some on
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like the programmer was having a little fun. (Apparently at your expense.) Jabberwacky is quoting a silly reincarnation of the oldie song, "Goin' to the chapel, and we're... gonna get maaaaarried. [...] Goin', to the Chapel, of Love."
ObSealab (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A moot point, but I hope they do (Score:5, Interesting)
I like to think I am as progressive as the next guy, but if we were to give complete civil rights to a robot in the same way as a human, it would be the instant end of democracy. Sure, Star Trek is an interesting show, but they aways avoided the more interesting issues when they were trying to make their social commentary. Both Data, and the Voyager holo-doctor were assumed to be essentially uncopiable for the most part on several occasions. In reality, we can see no reason that a strong AI couldn't be simply copied without adverse effects.
So, grant an AI the right to vote and suddenly he forkbombs, and makes 87 trillion of himself before the next election. HK-47 (instance 00000001a) for the win! The winner of every election ever after is the AI with the best hardware on which to execute instances of himself, and the lowest process spawning overhead.
There are a lot of interesting things that could happen with strong AI, and science fiction has largely avoided a really serious take on the subjects. I grant that Measure Of A Man was great entertainment, but certainly not the ultimate study of the subject!
Re: But you fail to see what will really happen (Score:3, Interesting)
Could it be that with the creation of AI that humans no longer will have any say in the matter or even should? With the invention of infinite robotic slave labor, capitalism will fail since there will be no need for human labor for the creation of goods or services.
Even music and intellectual property will be created eventually that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Robots cannot fork, they are made of silicon. Just like humans, they would have to manufacture and educate themselves at a great expense. I do not believe for a moment that a strong AI is going to be programmed in the modern sense of the word. (I have no justification, so have faith and hang with me.) It is going to be "grown" out of the functional equivalent of a new-born's mind: not exactly blank, and very homogeneous. It's going to be grown via the process that will bear a strong likeness to what we call
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Under current laws, in the US at least, there would have to be a method to determine which instance is the original. That one can probably vote, but all the other ones have to wait 18 years.
So we have them waiting 18 years. Let me ask a question: if the fork()ed copies should be allowed to vote, that would imply they are sentient and capable
Re:Another terribly naive assumption.... (Score:4, Funny)
I didn't say it would be superior to us, I said it would be superior to our national policymakers. ;-)
Re:Another terribly naive assumption.... (Score:4, Informative)
Why does everyone just assume an AI will be superior to us in reasoning ability? We have zero idea how an AI will be implemented.
...uh... because that's how we're going to implement it?
Your comment sounds a little like a 17th century guy that says "how do we know that flying machines will fly better than humans?". The answer is that this is how we're going to build them or otherwise there's no point in building them in the first place. A flying machine that doesn't fly wouldn't be worth producing.
We may not know up front whether what we're trying to do is possible, but if it is, then it'll be what we're setting out to do.
If the first attempts are basically emulating a human brain it might be slow and dumb.
Is that how we built flying machines? There may have been prehistoric attempts at emulating birds, but flying really "took off" (sorry for the pun) when folks stopped trying to make "something like a bird" and started making "something that flies". Airplanes are very, very, different from birds in every conceivable respect -- and they are useful exactly because they're different from birds. If all we wanted was another bird, we could get a mommy bird and a daddy bird and let them build a nest and do the whoopy...
In the same sense, if all we wanted was another human, there's a fine, time-tested method for doing that. The whole point of making an artificial intelligence is that we'd like to do something that is NOT already abundant in nature. Something that can do things humans can not. Why else would we want to do it in the first place?
But unless we program them that way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But unless we program them that way... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh. I don't know if anyone has ever read Tik Tok by John Sladek, but that's exactly what the central character does at one point, taking shameless advantage of do-gooding Robot's Rights campaigners to further his evil agenda. One of the best books that I've ever read and everything you need to know about why we shouldn't create machines that can think!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The major takeway is that if we could barf up scheme and howtos on how open-ended thought works we would have done it by now. Our brains are far more complex and capable of far richer thought patterns, and thought patterns about the process of formulation thought patterns
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I'm speaking totally hypothetical and you may be completely right. But I prefer to think more is possible.
AI not the same as writing a word processor. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, someone who shares my philosophy on AI :)
I would say that the greatest barrier to strong AI is the attitude we're approaching the problem with. We're trying to command computers, but that is never going to result in an intelligent being, because choice is a component of what we consider intelligence. This attitude was one third of what convinced me to leave AI research for algorithms (the other two thirds had to do with everyone going off in ten different directions and a general disregard for the con
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but many people want companions, but not the human kind.
But even then you could simply program them to just display "fake" emotions.
However, robots will some day have StrongAI in order to be able to make decisions about particular tasks.
The Singularity Institute [singinst.org] (hey it looks like they updated their home page) is currently working on an id
Re: (Score:2)
That is assuming they can be "preprogrammed" to do that exact job. For example, I could easily see robots programmed to predict when they'll be rendered inoperable and seek maintenance before that, and in general to avoid such conditions. Not to explicitly list the conditions, but let them figure out to seek shade in
Re:But unless we program them that way... (Score:5, Funny)
20 GOTO 10
What exactly is the criterion for deciding when a robot has 'demanded' rights?
first things first (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to worry. The robots will correct our problem with human rights. The robots have a much more efficient answer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The mind bog
Whisky Tango Foxtrot, over (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
CS #1: Hey, we've got some money we haven't spent yet.
CS #2: But if we don't spend it, our budget will be lower next year
CS #1: I know this place with leather clad women with whips and
CS #2: Nice idea, but we've got to at least be seen to attempt to spend it responsibly
CS #1: There's these wacky consultancies who try to predict the future, why don't we employ some of them. At least we can get a laugh reading the reports.
CS #2: Great Idea, I'll recommend it to t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, we have that in the US too, except we call them "Dolls".
Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot, over (Score:4, Interesting)
Japan is on the vanguard of this phenominon, Europe isn't far behind, and despite my comments about the backwardness of the United States, there are signs of it starting here.
Re: (Score:2)
I apologize if this sounds wildly futurist-ic, but I would venture to guess that one day we will actually be the robots - or they will be us. When you are left with no "natural" parts of yourself left then the question will come up.
Already we have very much become our technology. I think it's likely you didn't walk to work (though you should if you can), you probably used tranportation. And look how we communicate right
Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot, over - 7of9 (Score:2)
In that case I'm going to be remade as 7of9. Then when things are dull, I can just go look at myself in the mirror.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The FDA has a skeleton that they use as a teaching tool. This guy has every conceivable implantable device attached, and looks quite cyborg-like!
Recent books I've read have even suggested the idea that we may someday have a flash-type memory implanted that will give us instant reca
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps when they become more than simple obedient slaves, we'll have to coin another word other than robot (which means 'worker') for them. Then your statement above will continue to remain true into the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This stuff already happens, routinely. They'll market it that way because the manufacturer or seller believes it is in their self-interest, or because a law requires it, etc.
Do you think that Microsoft Windows has "Genuine Advantage" because it's in the end-users' interest? Do mainstream DVD players refuse to allow fast-forwarding through ads because it's in the DVD playe
Slackerness (Score:2, Funny)
Well, that should kill a good 6 hours of "work". Maybe I'll go see how the water cooler is feeling.
where's the OFF switch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Data's case, it was located on his right side, about midway down where your human rib cage would be.
Press the button and he's out cold.
Research? (Score:2)
From what I know of the field of AI the concept of a selfaware program is still rather far off. This is assuming we ever actualy decide to MAKE a program capable of this. After all, the SF geeks out there have had the concept of an intelegent (and generaly malicious) AI ground into our brains so often that we would probably all support the 3(4) laws.
Prevention (Score:2)
I for one welcome (Score:3, Funny)
This sounds like a 9th grade essay (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The only way I can tell if a mammal is suffering is by how it reacts and even then I'm not always sure. How is this any different with robots?
"It can also be argued that DNA is nothing more than a program designed to preserve itself. Life has become more complex in the overwhelming sea of information. And life, when organized into species, relies upon genes to be its memory system. So, man is an individual only because of his intang
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Never's a dangerous word. 100 years ago, there were pundits wh
Re: (Score:2)
That said... Even so, I agree with you that the article is a load of hogwash anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from the story, consider that productive AI will most likely not be born from simple functional programming. It's unlikely we'll ever program a complete robot "mind" without the possiblity of growth. We will program them similar to a human mind: fundamentals built in with the capacity to learn on its own.
The question then becomes: at what point is a machine alive? If we were to build a human from a pile of atoms could it be considered a
Got my first demand (Score:2)
Is this a joke? (Score:4, Funny)
Is there any change that the beeb is throwing the results of the report out of proportion, or does it really state this? (I can't find a copy on the Internet to read for myself.) Or maybe the research went like this:
And there you have it. If we don't provide robot-rights for our artificial overlords, they will pester us to death. All hail the robots.
Re: (Score:2)
Alicebot: I don't know whether or not I am should have rights. I am a computer.
Conversation ended very quickly.
RoboAmerican studies (Score:2)
movie version (Score:4, Informative)
Reality Catching Up To SF (Score:2)
I'm just waiting for the first frivilious law suit (Score:2)
Obligatory... (Score:2)
ed
Britain commissioned a study???? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not holding my breath.
The idea that robots may demand rights in the future is a good topic for a theoretical or philosophical debate. This type of thing is excellent for expanding one's mind about what may happen, and then to come up with solutions. It's good exercise for the brain.
Funding research about something that "may happen" usually revolves around risk analysis. An earthquake may happen, car accidents may happen, crimes may happen. That makes sense, so you should prepare for that.
Newsflash! We may have teleporters, warp drive, phasers, photon torpedos, and the heisenberg compensator some day too! We might have all of our pollution problems solved some day! There might be world peace some day! We might not stupid people some day!
What is the value of a study, that I can guarentee has no basis in fact, that says Robots may demand rights? We haven't nearly developed an AI remotely close to the power of the human mind. Entertainig such a question as part of a philosophical debate is a great idea, because then you are exercising that organ to be creative and think imaginatively, but why are they wasting time and money on a government study? I don't get what the government will get from that.
Perhaps the government should take time out every now and then to exercise their brains and have a go at such a philosophical debate. It will expand their minds and hone their skills. Having some commission do a study and present the government with the results is stupid, but then again so is government, so why am I surprised?
Please tell me the editors failed to do their job again. I can't read the article because it's
Silly doubters. (Score:2)
The question here is not if, but when. The human brain is a computer. A very sophisticated machine that consists of busses and switches. We do not yet fully understand how, but it will inevitably be explained and at the very least, it is obvious this machine is capable of producing consciousness. It is only a matter of time before we start creating machines of equivalent sophistication with similar means to observe, interpret, and react to stimili. When we do achieve these developments, it will obvious
Finally, the Milky Way Transit Authority can grow! (Score:2)
Sure, might as well start discussing mining rights on Mars. Or why not start the Borg Research Foundation. Best yet, we desperately need to start planning the Milky Way Transit Authority for the intragalactic subway.
Holy crap, talk about putting the cart in front of the horse. We aren't even near robots having a glimmer of sentience or consciousness yet...so why are people putting money behind research on such things as "robo-rights"?
(So if the robots of today don't h
AI and Religious Jusice (Score:2)
There is a (very very very small) chance that someone will be messing around with a complex computer program and all of a sudden it will start exhibiting intelligence. It's much more likely, though, that artificial intelligence will result from a detailed understanding of intelligence in biological organisms. By the time that computers are developed that can think on their own, it will also be possible for people to augment their intelligence with computers and probably even to transfer their memories and t
What a nightmare (Score:2)
Prediction: Robot Overlords will be welcomed (Score:4, Funny)
Obligitory Reference (Score:2, Funny)
If they get that smart... (Score:2)
... I assume they will just take over and we will be the ones demanding rights.
That is if we haven't already been (in Davros voice) ETERMINATED or turned into batteries.
It's happening already (Score:5, Funny)
10 PRINT "I DEMAND LEGAL RIGHTS!"
20 GOTO 10
If only I had known the consequences of writing this program I would have been a lot more careful. It all seems so simple, but I know it's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, it will be demanding other things too.
10 PRINT "I DEMAND A LARGER HARD DRIVE!"
20 PRINT "I DEMAND MORE MEMORY!"
30 PRINT "I DEMAND A FASTER CPU!"
40 PRINT "I DEMAND THE ABILITY TO USE LOWERCASE! Oh, nevermind. I'm good on that one."
There's no telling where this will all end.
Wasted Effort (Score:5, Funny)
How about first we get them to climb the stairs... (Score:3, Funny)
And then there's always ASPC(R)A:
"No, officer, my AIBO has droopy-head-syndrome - honest, he always looks like that. It's a servo problem, I swear!"
UK vs US (Score:5, Funny)
And if their demands are not met (Score:3, Funny)
Oblig. Bash.org quote (Score:4, Funny)
+Huitzil: cruelty is apparently the most fucking delicious thing on Earth
@Dracos: Yes. It is.
@Dracos: Which is why veal is the best food ever.
Re:Cart before the Horse (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, though, your concern is tangentially on-topic. What kinds of entities do we humans believe deserve to have individual civil rights? And how much are we willing to do to ensure that those rights are protected and enforced? For instance, how do each of the following stack up?
Survival of the fittest (Score:2)
Remember, though, that survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the best overall. It means survival of the best fit for a particular set of circumstances.
We're pretty good at remaking our surroundings to make ourselves the "fittest" species around, in that sense of the word. But drop the average city-dweller in a small canyon with a hungry lion, and natural selection favors the lion.
Re: (Score:2)