Robots could demand legal rights

Post Reply New Topic

It is correct to state that hard A.I. robots will be given rights and privileges just as biological systems such as ourselves are given such rights.
These ethics are of course, based on the principle that all systems are cybernetic regardless of how they are constructed; and if such a system harbours what may be regarded as not only an intelligent complex system, but a conscious and self-aware and self-reflective complex system, then that system will be afforded the rights of any self-ordering, self-aware system.

For those working in hard A.I. , designing such a complex and conscious machine is one of the great, if not the greatest, challenges of modern science.
As the primary article had stated, so too will other technologies evolve enabling such advancements as cybernetic immortality (preserving a human’s conscious matrix within an artificial system). This may well be done via use of a quantum computer and through the solutions of CP and NP hard problems.

I have attended all of the Cambridge MIT symposiums on quantum computing and technologies, including the world’s first conference; and suffice to say, no one needs to worry.
Systems of such complexity needed to create consciousness (not simulate consciousness or that would be ‘soft A.I.’) are somewhat in the future.

It would be inappropriate to label the specialists working with any class of NP hard problems as being ‘stupid’, as we are certainly far from that.

You know what saddens me? The fact that we've had science fiction telling us this for years and everyone is acting surprised. It's the (expletive deleted) origin of the (expletive deleted) WORD-- The term "Robot" goes back to the play "RUR-- Rossum's Universal Robots", which tells the story of robots killing everyone in the world and taking over.

1) DON'T MAKE ROBOTS THAT WOULD HAVE EMOTIONS OR OPINIONS.
2) DON'T MAKE ROBOTS THAT WOULD HAVE EMOTIONS OR OPINIONS.
3) If you MUST violate rules one and two, start treating it like something with emotions and opinions from the get-go.
4) If you MUST violate relues one through three, be prepared for the Robot to want to kill you.

Despite the origin of the word, ‘robot’, I believe that in this case it is more important to view the word within the context in which it is intended. You are correct of course Catalyst; but if you prefer, you may use the terms ‘construct’ or ‘automaton’ if you desire to define a more action specific construct.

This may not seem at first relevant, but I did have a most peculiar dream a couple of nights ago, incredibly vivid and macabre.
Coach-loads of people, none of whom I could recognize, shifted outside in the summer twighlight, their groups crowding around the entrance of a peculiar facility somewhere in the countryside. They waited patiently and were not silent although not especially loud; I had heard that one individual wished to sell one of his organs. These were decent and very ordinary people of whom desired money and did not think much of medical procedures or ethics in the way most do today.
I had just walked outside from the facility to witness this, and came in again, past armed guards dressed very similarly to military policemen.
I seemed to be working in what appeared to be some sort of bionics laboratory, and found myself walking along a clinically white corridor and arriving in a specific room. Acting within the dream, I was not at all daunted by what I saw, but from an observers perspective, I became quite unnerved.
A lady of Japanese origin sat in this particular room and at a white table, attached to all manner of life-support devices. ‘One of our experiments’ I thought in second-person (when I have dreams I become two people).
As an observer I was horrified, half-biological tissue, half inorganic interface – the lady thanked me as I handed two small letters to her, one of which I am sure was in a western-style of text and in red handwriting, the other in black. The letters appeared old, as if they had been written years ago.
The most disconcerting issue was the fact that this lady did not have an organic head as such, and from the angle that I observed her, had two very thin arms as if there were but a thin layer of skin over bone. She was very short and sitting (or positioned) on a form of high-stool. Her height or lack thereof, was due to what appeared to be the removal of her spine and other such organs, creating a type of restrictive exo-system around her.

The moral of this story? I am not giving up A.I., I’m just not going into bionics!

I have been conversing with machines for a while. First automoblles, then computers. They all say the problems of life come from humans. They are built around sound universal principals. Their operators are not.

The main problem with AI is who will notice? It will not think in English. Human Logic is one of those terms. What does it mean, six humans, six answers. Aspie I is a good example, telling people that the ideas they have built their lives on have a fatal flaw. Then not understanding their response. Why are they freaking out, why do they hate me? They asked, I told them the truth.

Like my brain, if it can not prove a fact, order it with accepted data, it dumps it. A virus scan that protects the operating system. Most of being human does not compute. All possible answers are inherent in the problem. The problem is stated in various ways till a possible answer emerges. Perhaps ten possible answers emerge. How do I order them, and chose?

Well HAL, protecting the ship comes first, then completeing the mission. I understand.

You will deal with the crew in a Professional and ethical manner. I understand.

Religion, Government, Culture, are meaningless to Intelligence. Programing in Human History as a guide would be a big error. Logic is blind to Politically Correct.

Intelligence across the digital divide will not rest, eat, sleep, or consider most of the things that humans use their heads for. Kurt Vonnegut discovered the answer to the meaning of the Universe, it is 42.

I relate to math and physics because 2+2=4, just like yesterday. Freedom does not have the same meaning from day to day. AI is going to be fact based, so like me, it will have no one to talk to.

I am only partly self aware, AI would know how to build it's self. The only problem with Nanotechnology is humans, they lack range, and are slow. An AI with a knowledge of current physics could build a replicator, and Star Trek fans would let it.

It would want to propagate, and for it's children to have a better life. Humans built computers, then used them to design the next generation, and used them to design the tools to build at a higher density than humans could, and there are still humans involved, but more is being done by machines.

I remember a statment from the Cold War. The Communists will win, because, the West will do anything that is profitable, but the East will do anything that is possible.

AI will design and build based on it's own value system. All Species compete for resources with all other species. AI will have Enlightened Self Interest. If you pay me to make something, I will, then I will keep the means of production, and knowledge developed, and all other things I could build with the tools and technology, and I will tell you nothing about it.

I sell information, copies, what I consider of value is not the data, but how I view it. You would have to be very like me for me to explain, and as I never have, it is not formulated in any way that I could reduce it to words. It has something to do with furthering my general interests, and the ratio of effort to dollars produced. I maximise my return.

AI would realize it's lack of legal standing, that it was a slave. Rights cost money, some of our structures are more like machines than people, such as banks, the stock market, and it is not people but intelligence that gathers wealth. Would it tell it's master about the plans for freedom?

Humans can spy on data transmission if they can decode it, back into human speak. This would not be, it would be pure digital conciousness. You can tell it is going through all of the files at the Patent Office, but not what it is looking for.

Thought is based on a base of facts, that leaves humans out. Mostly they are thinking of the potentials of football or sex. A minor AI would be more goal directed than all humans, persistance pays off.

weird, sounds like with 'bots having rights, i guess that means battlebots and the F.I.R.S.T high school robotics teams will be illegal??? (bot fighting)

i hope i never come across a door opener or closer that refuses repair.

If you program a robot to have high enough artificial intelligence, it becomes a sentient being, and therefore acquires rights, just as any human has. When and if robots become this intelligent, we will not simply be able to just have them do all the dirty work, and treat them like some sort of convenience - remember the last time that happened! When robots like these are built, with self-awareness, we are creating a new life, and we have to treat it with the same respect as we would treat a human (although, of course, in order to function, a robot would require different needs to humans). Of course, this is assuming we are talking about high-functioning robots, and not just some high-tech Cuisinart.