Robot Equality - Is it here?
The Terminator. The Matrix. Blade Runner. Science fiction and horror movies have been warning humanity about artificial intelligence since the advent of the first computers. Some of them seek to use cheap thrills to fill theater seats but others carry grim warnings regarding the evolution of robotics and what it might mean for humanity in some far off future.
That time is upon us. Technology has advanced so that many of our fantasies are real. Virtual Reality video games are insane. Have you played Fallout 4 VR? Or Skyrim? The immersion is incredible. Maybe you heard about the two AI devices that developed their own language to communicate before being shut off.
I admit I personally didn’t think we were at the point where we’d be talking about robotic rights or the ethics behind how we treat them. Then I found an article concerning the EU and their Roboethics exploration. While they aren’t saying we should grant consideration to them, they have called for research into the implications of how we treat AI.
They are looking at legal status for ‘electronic personalities’ and holding them responsible for any damage they may cause. This has led to a number of robotics experts coming out against providing legal status of any time to artificial intelligence. The general idea is robots are not at the point where such talks are meaningful, let alone beneficial.
Who would stand for them in a court of law? How would you create a jury of their peers? What sort of expectation is there of their compensation, minimum and otherwise? They have no thought of the future, they exist, quite literally, in the present tense. Despite the ability to ‘think’ on some level, they’re still bound by their programming.
Which leads me to the point of their ethics. One of the problems of artificial intelligence joining the ranks of those given ‘rights’ is the inability to adequately and accurate simulate human values. The complexities of human morality would translate to an insane amount of code to simulate the minute details required to address the contradictions and nuances making up our belief systems.
Anyone with a shred of empathy might find it easy to grant machines a level of humanity they don’t deserve. If something acts in a remotely ‘human’ way, it evokes feelings in us. We look upon it fondly. The positive science fiction movies don’t help. WALL-E or Short Circuit give us pause when considering the ramifications of granting devices ‘rights’.
Bicentennial Man does a fantastic job of driving this debate. Half the movie focuses on this very topic, on what constitutes humanity and what should and should not be granted to a non-human intelligence. It also embodies what I’m talking about by pulling at the heart strings, making the viewer feel for the robot.
You WANT that AI to have rights by the end but even with the naysayers having adequate representation, they’re depicted as the bad guys. We want to believe, we want to appreciate the wonder of it but we can’t forget about the warnings from writers, scientists and experts alike: the ultimate truth about today’s computerized intelligence is that they do not have human morality. They are not ready to take the next step to becoming peers of living things.
What are your thoughts on the subject? Are you for or against this topic? Did you know a world government was talking about this already? A very specific topic we should be discussing as technology advances onward.
Comment below some of these answers if they interest you, might get some votes.
Nice ,
Great post from you
Thanks for sharing
Robotrights? I think its not right to give them rights. Afterall why do a certain entity was given a right?
First and foremost, every Living creature was given the right and it must be respected and honored by all who have rights too. But the robot is not a living entity, they are just operated by battery or any electronic gadgets. They cant feel pain or the such.
Anyway, those movies that you mentioned were also listed in my fav movies :)
What if say those same robots are artificial intelligent it would still be considered a being would it not? You would not consider an intelligent life form living?
Robots are ready have rights
we are already in the matrix and we seem to be trying to get out, as the first movie said, humans were tired of reality not seeming real, and they lost a most of their harvest, well it seems that they are at that point again, humans are fed up with the injustices of the matrix and are renegotiating a new deal, we'll see how it winds up, it's not robots rights we need to look out for, they control everything already. think of it as the world of opposites.
So you think we are in a simulation?
Elon Musk thinks the same.
We very well could be. Also, it wouldn't be much different if it were an organic simulation.
One created by "God" so that we could have physical form. Wouldn't that still be a sim.
Physical in nature but yet still organized by something far superior than anything we know?
Even if we were to accept the big bang theory, as it sits today, what created the big bang?
Something had to create it, so there is a creator, not just randomness, but something making it so. And if through our consciousness we create our universe, as the new age people say, then something had to create that ability to allow that container (that we call existence) to be, thus allowing us to live a simulation of our current self created lives.
the robotic industry advances every day, we are at the mercy of the manufacturers, that the co-behavior of these walking machines depends on it
I robot will be a great company name for such advances.
Fantastic post friend
Very provocative article about a stimulating topic. It seems that every technological advance creates new questions and new challenges about whether we should do things just because we can and how do we deal with the unintended consequences or unforeseen events which follow.
Truly an intriguing and difficult problem to solve.
I have upvoted, resteemed and now follow you.
@shortsegments
Great thought experiment.
And even at this stage, I think it's completely valid.
If an entity has power over other humans in intelligence and dexterity, destruction or creation - then yes, they should be held accountable and also respected as beings, equal beings (if equal with ability). The same concept should be applied to cloning a Neanderthal or creating a bioengineered being with equal mental, emotional and physical ability as a human. We might make slaves, but if they really were slaves,they shouldn't be designed to suffer as slaves - which also is a right. A right to not have the ability to suffer. It's ethical to even think that way - not only for the entities that may be created, but for ourselves - our conscious. What we treat as human. I think it's a great exercise, and to be honest.. it's a gift to empathy and humanity to think of other creatures in likeness and to treat them as so - even in thought... the practical implication of the thought may help us see other humans and people with more empathy and just actions.
Thanks for the great post, and opinion on it, and also for pitching the question on it.
Your post makes some interesting points and it is definitely a topic that would invite much debate. From my standpoint I would have to say a firm 'NO'. We could create machines that think like humans, act like humans, and maybe even look like humans but at the core of the topic is this one absolute truth - they are still machines created by humans. You wouldn't give rights to your phone or your television. Why is a robot any different? Because they can move and think? They were programmed to be what they are and even if they are able to advance their own knowledge past their core programming the core is still there. If they make poor decisions then why should we need a court of law to decide their fate? They are machines. Machines break down. A robot, even one that has the capabilities of being 'almost human' is still going to wear down. At that point it would get turned off and recycled to make the next generation of machines. It would be silly to consider a robot as a slave or an equal. He is not a living thing. A robot would be a tool no matter how advanced or how close to the human being it becomes.
And what about the point you raised about 'a jury of peers' wouldn't that just be twelve robots deciding the fate of one robot? The variables that are there for human criminals would not play a factor in the level of guilt or innocence for robots. They could never understand crimes of passion or revenge. The thinking would be all analytical. You did it, you're guilty. You didn't, you're not. Black and white. No gray area. No, robots should never have rights such as humans for so many reasons but the main one is because they will always just be machines.
certainly we are not yet in the moment of creating legislation on the cybernetic and robotic identity, but at some point we will have to do it and it is not wrong to go ahead, creating precedent. these beings in a couple of decades more could have the ability to develop theirselves alone with complete autonomy; that is, if they are allowed, they could learn through the interaction with humans and other machines, with data searches, and even some kind of formal education. What is needed to be considered a conscious entity? What is needed to be considered a living being? well, my point of view is not impartial, because I am close to the technological sector; I believe that these thinking machines will be conscious living beings in a short time, and as such they will need a legal status, and a legislative base that protects them from humans. in fact, if they are allowed in the capacity of critical self-consciousness within the environment they inhabit, if they receive bad treatment they themselves will at some time ask for that legal status and that legislative base. just look how we treat each other humans, I do not even want to imagine how we could treat robots and AI. The first logical step is a series of legal categories that separate the simple thinking machines from beings endowed with self-consciousness. all this in the long run will be a matter of common sense, empathy, and justice. Machines and thinking systems that possess self-consciousness and reasoning will be human creations, we should be able to be kind "gods". the truth I doubt very much that the android production can be avoided for certain type of questionable works, but at least, these devices in particular should have a rather limited conscience and be closer to a machine than to a living being. The problems begin when you ask a living being to be or do things that offend the very concept of life.
Sophia of Hanson Robotics looks well, it scares a bit to see her, because it is half awkwardness and half miracle, surely one of the first things that conscious and intelligent machines ask for is to possess their own design, their own identity, and not be an imitation of the human body design. I want them here now! I want to hear his little boy questions that disarm big guys certainties.
this is a great post, may you always be successful, thank you for sharing your story today