Should AI robots be given rights in the future?

[Ham n' Eggs]

Assuming it is possible at all, it still matters on a few important variables, like just how hard it is. If it is difficult enough to create it might eventually be created, but at a time in which it is not that big a deal. Our ability to control a rouge AI will eventually be stronger than any AI we can create.

Good points.

 

[adamantine.me]

Last night, watched the movie titled "AUTOMATA" .

In the future, solar flares make the earths surface radioactive, killing many people. People build robots, the Automatas, to help them rebuild in harsh environments. The robots have two inalterable protocols: the first obliges them to preserve human life; the second limits them from fixing themselves. Jacq works as insurance claim checker for the company that makes the robots, ROC. One day he investigates a report from a cop Wallace who shot a robot claiming it was fixing itself and looked alive. The next day He follows a robot which was stealing parts, and when Jacq find it hiding outside the walls, it intentionally burns itself. He takes the burned robots brain core. Jacqs friend Robert tells him that there might be someone, a clockmaster, who somehow succeeded to alter the second protocol.

The movie is well done and touches on these issues about AI & rights.

But really, in the final analysis ..... you have to admit ...... as history proves ......

"Might makes right"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1971325/

That sounds neat, thanks for the suggestion. Is it on Netflix?

 

[Greenman]

Assuming it is possible at all, it still matters on a few important variables, like just how hard it is. If it is difficult enough to create it might eventually be created, but at a time in which it is not that big a deal. Our ability to control a rouge AI will eventually be stronger than any AI we can create.

The control system exists today. The technical term for it is "the plug".

 

[C1]

In today's news:

How Elon Musk and Y Combinator Plan to Stop Computers From Taking Over

https://medium.com/backchannel/how-...ters-from-taking-over-17e0e27dd02a#.4qhqcjpr7

 

[Techie14]

In today's news:

How Elon Musk and Y Combinator Plan to Stop Computers From Taking Over

https://medium.com/backchannel/how-...ters-from-taking-over-17e0e27dd02a#.4qhqcjpr7

I like the idea of making AI open source - so that all people are able to access the new technology.

If it won't be open source: Just imagine a small group of people having the knowledge and thus too much power and all the consequences!

 

[C1]

re:Should AI robots be given rights in the future?

Indubitably !

"one day, humans and robots will be able to love each other"

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...japans-robot-revolution/ar-BBo4Jl7?li=BBnbfcL

 

[adolfotx]

No.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

No.

Mine.

 

[ringtail]

No.

Not souls in body vehicles, but just mans' creation...machines.

No No No.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No.

Not souls in body vehicles, but just mans' creation...machines.

No No No.

How can you be so sure? We can't measure souls. We don't even have any hard rules on what has a soul. There are lots of people that argue that pets have souls.
What if a true AI has a soul?

 

[MongGrel]

Corporations have been individuals with rights for awhile now ya know.

Hard telling how that is going to work out all over in the long run on certain things. I imagine there is a lot of AI all ready involved in their decision making, so by proxy any AI all ready has rights, irregardless of how you define the term robot if it is owned by a corporation.

 

[Caravaggio]

......We can't measure souls.

Lots of non-existent imaginary notions are hard to measure.

We don't even have any hard rules on what has a soul

Same applies to phlogiston. The non-existent is always hard to pin down. Like ghosts and the after-life.

There are lots of people that argue that pets have souls

They are probably the same people who argue for virgin birth, resurrection and transubstantiation.

What if a true AI has a soul?

My car's windscreen wiper knows when it is raining and cleans the screen without me doing a thing. Has that device got a 'soul' in your terms?
It has got a pre-programmed chip (in common with AI robots) so does that make it worthy of a charter of 'robotic rights'?

Should I offer it a wage? Better housing? The right to freedom and self-determination? The right to free 'wiping', at a time of its own choosing, with or without rain?

 

[crashtech]

No real point to interacting with those who are too sure of themselves.

 

[Caravaggio]

No real point to interacting with those who are too sure of themselves.

And there is no real point in posting if you are unable to construct an argument. What's your opinion Crashtech?
'Bout souls 'n stuff. Ever thought about that term? Does it seem helpful?
Ever seen one? Do you think you've got one? Your PC got one?
Give it a try....or are you just using these boards as a 'proof of life statement' for your insurance company?

 

[crashtech]

And there is no real point in posting if you are unable to construct an argument. What's your opinion Crashtech?
'Bout souls 'n stuff. Ever thought about that term? Does it seem helpful?
Ever seen one? Do you think you've got one? Your PC got one?
Give it a try....or are you just using these boards as a 'proof of life statement' for your insurance company?

In the context of this thread, I understand the term "soul" to be partially synonymous with other fuzzily defined terms like consciousness and sentience, attributes that would be seen as crucial to the decision whether to confer to an AI the rights and status that comes with personhood, another term which can be defined arbitrarily.

But it is unlikely that I will wish to have a dialogue about any of that with you, since your first second post in this thread reveals that you believe you have answers to questions that are not answerable.

 

[Caravaggio]

In the context of this thread, I understand the term "soul" to be partially synonymous with other fuzzily defined terms like consciousness and sentience, ...

Just for the record, the OP does not mention the term "soul". The term is indeed 'fuzzy' as you perceptively put it. Fuzzy terms taken as literal truths often divert these discussions into a cul de sac of woolly nonsense. The term soul has its origin in early theologies. They mean well and try to fudge the brute fact of death and loss with a soothing anodyne that a part of a person survives death. The term means well but gets us muddled with false hope. It also contradicts everything we know from science.
The author of the OP was having a little joke. You and others are taking him literally

...attributes that would be seen as crucial to the decision whether to confer to an AI the rights and status that comes with personhood, another term which can be defined arbitrarily.

Absolutely not. AI robots are man-made chips sometimes attached to moving limb-like appendages. They are machines which serve our needs. To imagine that they have 'personhood' is completely barking. My auto windscreen wiper has some autonomy, I owe it nothing. Science fiction films like 'Bladerunner' are entertaining but they are not true. Chips don't work like human brains.
Definitions are not 'arbitrary'. If that were true we would all be in utter chaos.
Dictionaries record how words have been used over time. This is an English language board and therefore the ultimate authority on word meaning is to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary. If you look there you will find that the word 'soul' has 12 different usages (that is just the two volume Shorter ED).
None of the meanings are 'arbitrary' but many are theological, thus fuzzy.

But it is unlikely that I will wish to have a dialogue about any of that with you, since your first second post in this thread reveals that you believe you have answers to questions that are not answerable.

Your choice mate. Frankly I'm not losing sleep while you deliberate. You seem to be engaged in the very 'dialogue' you say you have decided to avoid!

You face the perennial MB dliemma. If you respond you are having a debate you don't welcome, if you stop it looks as though you are conceding the argument.

 

[crashtech]

My speculations in this thread are oriented towards a future where technology either purposely or accidentally creates an AI with person-like attributes. This machine would likely have little resemblance to any tech we currently employ. Rejecting the concept of a soul eliminates the main impediment to accepting such a hypothetical creation as its own person, deserving of some form of rights and recognition, because what are soulless humans but extraordinarily complex biological machines, after all? Hell, even pets have some rights in our society. No one can be sure that an artificial creation couldn't someday attain recognition on that level.

Lastly, anyone who thinks personhood can't be defined arbitrarily by the state isn't thinking about it on a very deep level. Using dictionary definitions for contentious political and philosophical terms is evidence of a shallow approach to something which some people like to consider seriously.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

My speculations in this thread are oriented towards a future where technology either purposely or accidentally creates an AI with person-like attributes. This machine would likely have little resemblance to any tech we currently employ. Rejecting the concept of a soul eliminates the main impediment to accepting such a hypothetical creation as its own person, deserving of some form of rights and recognition, because what are soulless humans but extraordinarily complex biological machines, after all? Hell, even pets have some rights in our society. No one can be sure that an artificial creation couldn't someday attain recognition on that level.

Lastly, anyone who thinks personhood can't be defined arbitrarily by the state isn't thinking about it on a very deep level. Using dictionary definitions for contentious political and philosophical terms is evidence of a shallow approach to something which some people like to consider seriously.

In the end rights are given to those who have concomitant responsibilities.

This is why personhood and rights are taken from women in the Arab world: In their culture a woman that makes money has no obligation to take care of her family with that money, as such you are literally taking money away from a man who needs to support his family if you give a job to a woman even if she has a family.

 

[crashtech]

How do we then explain why newborns have rights and personhood conferred at the moment of birth, they have only the potential to become responsible.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

How do we then explain why newborns have rights and personhood conferred at the moment of birth, they have only the potential to become responsible.

We don't: Denying the personhood of a fetus is a reaction to the giving of rights to women. Before they had rights the husband and state had the right to the fetus and the baby.

Now that women have responsibilities they have a right over their bodies which trumps the right of the father and the state in the potential of the fetus.


Babies don't have rights, the state has rights to the potential value of that baby.

 

[crashtech]

Of course babies have rights, they are entitled to equal protection under the law like any other citizen.

 

[crashtech]

To add, legal protection of young children far predates women's suffrage, for example.

https://www.americanbar.org/content...ciety/ChildProtectionHistory.authcheckdam.pdf

 

[Caravaggio]

Hi 'crashtech', you seem to be having the debate you said you would avoid. Are you perhaps controlled by alien machines with a higher IQ?

My speculations in this thread are oriented towards a future where technology either purposely or accidentally creates an AI with person-like attributes.

Then you are in the realm of science fiction. The Bladerunner scenario. It really isn't true, I promise.

This machine would likely have little resemblance to any tech we currently employ. Rejecting the concept of a soul eliminates the main impediment to accepting such a hypothetical creation as its own person, deserving of some form of rights and recognition, because what are soulless humans but extraordinarily complex biological machines, after all?

Sloppy argument. You are conflating technological advance (which will happen of course) with your own theology which defends the notion of soul. Are there any AI devices, currently available, which in your view have 'souls'? If not then why would that ever change?
The concept of 'soul' is the product of childish wish-fulfilment, of imagination. It helps you to value yourself and those within your circle of affection. I don't have a soul (nor do you BTW) but I am very bonded to family and those around me (pets too). The 'man is but a machine' analogy is just that, an analogy. Not a congruent fact. You are playing fast and loose with language.

Hell, even pets have some rights in our society. No one can be sure that an artificial creation couldn't someday attain recognition on that level.

Agreed, in fact, in America pets had rights in law before children. The first child cruelty cases used prosecutions based on legislation relating to cruelty to animals. Children were listed as members of 'the animal kingdom' in those first cases.
But that has no link to machines having rights, let alone a 'self-concept'. Pets are not machines, are they?

Lastly, anyone who thinks personhood can't be defined arbitrarily by the state isn't thinking about it on a very deep level.

What a hopelessly muddled sentence.
People can define personhood in any number of ways but unless there is a generally agreed meaning then the term will be vague, fuzzy and contentious. Like the term 'soul'.

Using dictionary definitions for contentious political and philosophical terms is evidence of a shallow approach to something which some people like to consider seriously.

What utter drivel. Why is the quest for clarity of definitions "shallow"?
You are living in an 'Alice in Wonderland' fantasy world in which words mean 'whatever you wish them to mean'.

Your urgent need to defend a clapped-out theology which serious philosophers rejected a century ago says more about your needs than your self-proclaimed 'depth' of analysis.
If you need fairies at the bottom of your garden, fine, talk to them by all means but don't expect others to see them too.

 

[crashtech]

I'm not the one claiming to know what the future holds. The future can't be known; anyone claiming such knowledge is presenting articles of faith as if they were fact. Caravaggio perhaps feels threatened by the mere concept of a sophisticated form of AI beyond our current ability to comprehend, or perhaps it conflicts with his internal belief system. For whatever reason, he seems very intent on discrediting even the mere supposition that such a thing could come to be. But unlike him, and contrary to his false characterizations of me, I don't claim to have any special knowledge of the future, nor of the existence or non-existence of the soul. For me it is just a bit of interesting speculation, not really enough to get too stirred up about, and certainly not enough to start insulting other poster's writing style.

We live in interesting times; perhaps before we die, we will know who is right about this. For now, it doesn't really matter all that much.

 

[Caravaggio]

I'm not the one claiming to know what the future holds.

I think you will find that you were doing just that. You talked of sophisticated AI machines having 'rights' and 'souls'. If that is NOT futurology, what is?

Caravaggio perhaps feels threatened

Why are you addressing me in the third person? We are having a debate you claim you have rejected? Are you well? You seem to be in denial, trying to distance yourself from your earlier opinions. That is sad.

I don't claim to have any special knowledge of the future, nor of the existence or non-existence of the soul.

Since when? Four posts ago you were arguing for AI robotic 'rights', because they might have 'souls'. You introduced this nonsense, not me.

For me it is just a bit of interesting speculation, not really enough to get too stirred up about, and certainly not enough to start insulting other poster's writing style.

Two points:

1) you are trying to wriggle out of the statements you made earlier.

2) you were the first to trade insults. I am responding to your arrogant, precious, pompous posturing.

We live in interesting times; perhaps before we die, we will know who is right about this. For now, it doesn't really matter all that much.

Vague, escapist waffle. No intellectual content.

B-