Slashdot Mirror
Legal Rights for Computers
nicholast writes "There's a really smart story in the current issue of Legal Affairs Magazine about granting legal recognition to computers: when that might happen, why it could happen, and what a discussion about it will teach humans about themselves."
This is not a "really smart" story, it's a fantasy. It's too many ill-informed people (with too much time on their hands) that have seen "I, Robot". It even reads like some of the 'Susan Calvert' Asimov stories.
There is a world of difference between programming something to *act* as though it has emotions, and something actually having an emotional or original response. The former is no different to calculating a spreadsheet, the latter has to do with independent and original experiences and actions - implying intelligence and self-awareness. No computer today, no matter how well programmed, is as self-aware as a house fly. We don't grant flies legal rights.
The closest we've come to simulating intelligence, or at least produced non-programmed behaviour in computers are the neural networks coded up where the instructions ("program") are held within and are a function of the dataset rather than the construct. Even neural nets are simply matrix equations, albeit non-linear usually, and are thus completely deterministic. The typical neural network has less than 1000 nodes within it, the human brain has 100 billion neurons on average (with 10-50 times that many glial cells). The phrase "does not compare" doesn't even come close.
So, in short, what a load of rubbish.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
How about we just concentrate on holding on to the legal rights we HUMANS have in Bush's America?
Just look at the history of women rights, black rights, gay rights. Some of those cases are "solved" today, some of them are pending, but one thing is for sure: as soon as another category of sentient beings demands equal treatment, as subject, not as object, it gets nasty and former "master race" rarelly gives up without a fight.
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Our legal system is far behind the times when it comes to technology, 'cyberspace', online privacy, etc. I wish todays legal minds were working on those issues instead of dreaming up these far off futuristic scenarioes.
An artificial intelligence/computer should be granted the same rights as a human if, either itself or its maintainers under oath, it can pass the Turing test to the satisfaction of a judge.
Yeah sure...and of course these "legal rights" will be "interpreted" by Micro$oft or the RIAA or the MPAA, or any other greedy corporate-spawned "interest group" for the express purpose of wresting control of computers away from their owners.
You're using her as bait, Master!
That episode needed to be completely re-written.
Data already had the rank of Lt. Commander. That means that Star Fleet already recognized his ability to make decisions on his own.
Therefore, his decision to NOT be disassembled would not be challenged.
In order for the case to make sense (I know, it's Star Trek) then the robot would have to not have any prior recognition of its independence or decision making.
Star Fleet recognized Data sufficiently to give him a rank that allows him to order humans to risk their lives (do the 3 laws apply in Star Trek?).
People might say, "Well, computers are inanimate objects." It's true. They're simply logic gates and other chemicals arranged in a manner for moving data about.
Now, look at your cell. Zoom in. Then zoom in some more. All you are made of is inanimate. Is a protein alive? Is a piece of DNA? A nucleus? How small does a computer process have to be before its scale of "inanimate" approaches our own?
Whether a machine can have independent thoughts or emotions has not been shown even in the most primative forms.Pretty much it is when the machine refuses to perform its programmed function so it can perform a different function that was not in any of its programming.
Like when you slack off at work and read
Of course, the first indication that a machine is self-aware might also be the only reason you need to "fire" it for violating the company policy on unauthorized computer use.
Dude. Don't bother. You're dealing with wannabe freedom fighters who don't even know what to do with the freedoms they already have. There's young folk in this country right now who think we are worse than Nazi Germany. It's a bizarre segment of our society. I think they look at past civil rights struggles with a romantic tint, and they want something similar, so they fabricate this wacky worldview where United States 2005 is one of the most hideous, evil and oppressive societies to ever exist. It's pathetic, but what can you do? They're mentally ill.
I just figured that it might be a good intellectual exercise for these folks to have to produce some concrete evidence in support of their opinion of world affairs.
But I guess things like "documentation" and "concrete evidence" are just silly, antiquated, dead-white-European-male, patriarchal, phallocentric syllogisms that need not concern the modern woman.
"Of Legal Affairs Magazine about granting legal recognition to computers: when that might happen, why it could happen, and what a discussion about it will teach humans about themselves."
Instead of launching into the "I, Robot 2," fiction let's simplify this a great deal-- When it can independently ask for legal representation, that's when you sit up and take notice.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
The game is not about processing speed - we still do not know the fundamentals of natural intelligence. If we are given a computer with 10^15 FLOPS today, we still would not know what to do with it.
Why not give "computers" legal "rights"? Lawyers are in favor of protecting completely made-up "rights" of corporations more than they favor protecting humans - some of whom can't afford protection. I believe that "it's a person when it can complain that you broke a promise". Lawyers believe that it's a person when they can send it a bill. That time has already arrived.
--
make install -not war
So, your point is that the US, terrorists in Russia, Saddam's sons, and slave owners in Sudan are all equally bad?
Science fiction has been dealing with the "what if they get smarter than us" issue pretty much forever... but i don't think a Star Trek court would count as precidence in a real-world case, especially since the "date" in question hasn't happened yet.
I don't know about the "soul" issue, but as far as what true AI would do the work world, offshoring is giving us a taste now: Global communication has made access to brains cheaper and cheaper. Programming ability now costs about $2.20 an hour on the world market. When bandwidth gets even cheaper, remote-controlled robots that do plumbing, painting, burger flipping, etc. will dominate. The robot repair will even be done remote. Only unions and political pressure can stop it. The remaining jobs will be sales and management. Thus, either we need a new wealth distribution model, or those without sufficient people skills will die in the streets.
Welcome to the future, slashdot. Your brains are growing increasingly more worthless to capitalist every day. I am just the messenger. Have a nice day.
Table-ized A.I.
You can probably also find "brain surgeons" willing to work for $2.20 per hour "on the open market". Any takers?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Brain Surgery cannot be emailed to America from Taiwan. Completed computer programs can.
If such surgery costs $80,000 in the US, then a $1,000 plane ticket is not the bottleneck. Besides, it is already happening. Sure, one would rather have surgery in their home country, but not if they have no other choice or if the cost difference is huge.
Table-ized A.I.
It is funny that large parts of humanity lack these same rights, yet we are so concerned with computers??
That Starfleet gave him some functional rights and responsibilites doesn't imply that he has been given equal status as humans. I'm sure slaves were given responsibilities and some degree of authority at times. That doesn't mean they weren't still slaves.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I had a couple of dogs that seemed to me to be self-aware. They did not have the same legal rights I did as far as I know. So why would a computer be granted legal rights based on self-awareness?
Chimpanzees have some intelligence, as do dolphins, but we still confine them to zoos and do not afford them the right to a public attorney to work toward securing their freedom.
If we base legal rights solely on intelligence, than when someone has a stroke, enters a severe coma and is no longer able to demonstrate cohesive thought, does that mean they should not have rights anymore?
Just food for thought. Soemone with a better philosophy background than I (he or she took TWO or more philosophy classes) will probably be able to answer these questions better than I.
I forgot to summarize my main point - Legal rights are granted to human beings. For instance, the U.S. Constitution starts We, the People of the United States... , not We, the Self-aware, Intelligent beings of the United States.
But there is no inherent reason why computing power can't someday reach the level of the human brain. If Moore's law continues, this is supposed to take under 30 years.
We can't even simulate a spider's intelligence yet. It's not a problem of needing more cycles.
We need to work out how we think, and then try to "seed" this behavior into a machine that can learn. There are lots of interesting ideas out there, but every practical attempt I've seen has either been side-tracked by efforts to build interesting hardware, or too-ambitios attempts to jump stright to full intelligence/learning by taking "shortcuts" where you define behaviors and responses in software.
I expect the solution to emerge by itself once we've modeled some basic life "rules", and set a learning simulation running on them. i.e. start with a very simple 2D "game" in software, where the goal is to pick up randomly scattered food pellets. Pick them up too slowly and you die. Gradually let the methods for food pellet searching evolve itself, using genetic algorithms. Then throw in some competition - make more than one organism active at a time so they have to learn even better alogrithms. Then add elements such as the ability to kill each other- behavior such as alliances may emerge. Then make food appear seasonally, and give them the ability to stockpile it. Gradually keep adding more elements to the simulation, and let the intelligence unfold on its own.