Robot rights

[nbs2]

I know that this is just a concept discussion, but the idea of extending human rights to robots is intriguing. With AI, do we think that robots will understand "why we cry" or have actual feelings? And what would it take to determine if they deserve to have traditional rights reserved to humans (versus rights that are extended to animals versus the right of being a machine)?

 

[dllavaneras]

Well, in "I, Robot", Sonny couldn't be charged with murder because technically he (it) is not human, so I'm guessing for the time being, no, human rights would remain that.

Besides, I'd be VERY surprised if AI got to that point while we're still alive.

 

[SamIchi]

I think you're worryin about a thing that is way off into the future.

 

[apachie2k]

I think you're worryin about a thing that is way off into the future.

same...yet i do have to admit it is interesting. My take on it is that IF they are made for the betterment of the HUMAN expierence then they shouldnt' get anything, no rights, no voting privilages, nothing. Even though they could prob. pick a better pres. hahah anyways...yea... modern slavery? they are ROBOTS... WE created them, this could cause a problem for that little theory that says that no effect can be more perfect than it's cause

 

[thedude110]

Think it's a valid and growingly (?) contemporary question.

Another place to start. Let's say, by 2056 (I'll only be 79), we can download your consciousness into a Tandy. Ethical to pull your plug?

Fact is the line between human and machine is going to blur well beyond pacemakers, and we're eventually going to have to ask the question "what is our responsibility to sentience?" If a person integrates themselves to such a degree with technology that they are more machine than person, is it ethical to lop off their head?

Too bad we don't have a better definition of what it means to live, then.

 

[dllavaneras]

Too bad we don't have a better definition of what it means to live, then.

Well, pick up any biology book and one of the things something has to have to be considered "alive" is the ability to reproduce, sexually or asexually. Technically, robot's can't reproduce sexually, but would it be considered reproducing if your consciousness is uploaded to another robot individual? Or would that just be an extention to your "life"? since your consciousness can't reproduce, could you be called living at all? Could it grow within the confinement of the robot host, thus having one of those "things" that make you alive?

So many questions... We have a long way to go before any of these things happen, but they are quite valid points

 

[04440]

Any living thing huh.. Reproduce.. Wait until they clone jimmy the robot.. Wait until they're able to start having conversations with one another or complete complex tasks.. That's more than what some people can do in this life.. How can we not validate them as alive

 

[thedude110]

Well, pick up any biology book and one of the things something has to have to be considered "alive" is the ability to reproduce, sexually or asexually. Technically, robot's can't reproduce sexually,

Asexual reproduction is to an extent already underway if producing another version of your non-biological self meets the definition of asexual reproduction.

The biological definition of "living" seems iffy in this context tho as we'd be dealing with life that would be mechanical or mechano-biological (biologicanical?).

Doom, etc.

 

[Leareth]

Hmm there are alot of science-based SF books that deal with the rights of robots and AI.
The manga series Ghost in the Shell is very interesting because it is possible to upload your "ghost" into a machine body , indeed one of the characters eventually exist only on the internet.

Robert Sawyers books titled Mindscan tackles the legal and spiritual questions of what is human and what is alive. good read based on good science.

We have a hard enough time extending right to people in our own countries and make sure they are followed that the question should be will humankind ever be ready to give rights to non-human entities

 

[BuzWeaver]

I don't see this being of any major concern right now in the legal field.

 

[mcarnes]

What good is a robot if you can't treat him like crap.

 

[apachie2k]

water = life....or so it's said

so the abilty to eat, drink, and reproduce would be my definition

 

[dllavaneras]

The biological definition of "living" seems iffy in this context tho as we'd be dealing with life that would be mechanical or mechano-biological (biologicanical?)

Of course it's iffy, the basic definition of "alive" has changed little in a century or two. These advancements in AI are sure to change a lot of existing definitions. It would be fun to see a science class in a couple hundred years, though... I wonder what they'll teach as "alive"

Wait until they clone jimmy the robot.. Wait until they're able to start having conversations with one another or complete complex tasks.. That's more than what some people can do in this life.. How can we not validate them as alive

Clone a robot? Every robot built after the first robot (I'm talking about identical ones) would be clones, wouldn't they? They are exactly the same as the original... As for complex tasks, computers can do that, and to some extent even some toy robots. It all depends on your definition of complex. For me, they have a long way to go before I'd even consider calling them alive, in the broadest sense of the word.

Now that I think about it, you want a complex task? If a robot can figure out the way women think, THAT would bring them one step closer to being "alive" (any woman, I'm not picky... although I could use some help with my gf )