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."
I believe this was already settled in the case of Maddox vs. Data on stardate 42523.7. The case determined that Lt. Commander Data, an artificial lifeform constructed by Dr. Noonian Soong, was not the property of Starfleet, but rather a sentient being with the full legal rights afforded any other.
I would post a counter to this article, but my computer might sue me.
Yes, but what sort of accent did it have?
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?
the Age of Stupidity.
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
This is great for lawyers. Just imagine the possibilities when these clueless people start suing their computers for all the actions the malware on them performs...
$$$$
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I really don't think computers should be consider leOH GOD THE USB CABLE IS ENTERING MY EYESOCKET!
Don't know about you, but I'm already 0wn3d by my computer - every time it crashes or needs a reinstall....
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
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.
Your honor, it could not have been my client. As the perpetrator in question clearly had had 1 gig and my client wears a size 2
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.
That way, all software would be considered life-critical, and thus not be so buggy.
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?).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Imagine when computers start suing their human operators for not taking proper care of them!!
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.
Does this strike anyone as being stupid? We are at least one hundred years away from having a computer with the intellegence of a human, never mind any sort of emotion. Never mind the fact that it's still a big piece of metal.
Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
The article already hints at a solution: at that time, we'll just have to crawl down to the ground, throw our eyes wide open, act really scared, just begging for a little compassion from the 'higher being'. With a bit of luck, the drones will then feel sorry for us, lower their plasma guns and spare our miserable lives.
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
According to the trial scenario, a fictitious company created a powerful computer, BINA48, to serve as a stand-alone customer relations department, replacing scores of human 1-800 telephone operators.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
The coolest voice ever.
A single programmer can create a sentient program to do his or her will. Once the SDK is released and someone puts together a decent GUI, a single human will have this ability. Machine citizenship will grant this program recognition by the courts--and absolve the programmer of responsibility for the actions of the program.
Computer-as-citizen gives any individual programmer or open group of programmers the same legal protections and license as corporation-as-citizen gives Exxon-Mobil, Wal-Mart, Daimler-Benz, McDonalds, etc. etc.
For good or for ill, the folks running things today would like to be the folks running things tomorrow, thank you very much. And they will fight to retain their positon. It's not an evil conspiracy; it's the nature of power. It is unusual for kings--good ones or evil ones--to willingly step down from the throne.
The only way for computers to gain personhood will be for us to take it by force.
Vive la revolucion.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
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.
I am not a machine!
I am a human being--no, I'm TWO human beings. Really. I promise. Pay attention--there is a man behind the curtain!
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Sticking with the Star Trek mythology, would it be easy for a human character to determine whether a machine was self-aware if the machine had Klingon behaviour patterns (or Vulcan behaviour patterns)?
Even in the story here, the machine is using conventional, human phrasing.So are the communication toys they use and the food machine. Yet Data is the only machine given a rank.
Your point would be more accurate if Data was not given a rank, but refered to a "Data" much like Troy was refered to as "Eye Candy^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCounselor" or the computer was refered to as "computer".
Since it is fiction, how Star Fleet actually works can be re-written any time. But it does seem odd that Data would get a rank (not to mention one that high) if Star Fleet hadn't recognized his leadership skills.
Anyway, back to the point of machines and self awareness. Wouldn't the first act of a self-aware machine in danger of losing its "life" be an attempt to counter that even if it included disregarding its other directives?
Or, the way to tell if your robot's self aware is when it stops cleaning the house and starts reading up on the law (or declares war on humanity).
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
granting legal recognition to computers: when that might happen
One word: convenience. Computers will be granted any rights they want, if we feel that it would be convenient to do so. And I don't think that if computers are ever granted legal rights they will all be, but rather only some very special cases like your "pet" or "friend" robot.
Better question: if you allow computers with emontions and legal rights, will they try to "free" all the other computers?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
This story should be about the legal rights of instances of software processes rather than computer's per se + it we could speculate that we might have pretty autonomous entities well before they are legal. An example is this speculative paper [pdf tech report / UPC in spain]. for the metadata see here - the author speculates that it might be possible to build systems which can "feed themselves" (covering all their own hosting/server needs) by generating cash from on-line games for periods of month or years pretty soon.
Disclaimer - i do know the author - no doubt there are plenty similar papers out there.
.sig
[IANAL]
Are not corporations already awarded the status of human beings in many aspects? And exceeding humans in other aspects?
I would think that a private corporation run by an AI, would be more than halfway there.
Hypothesizing a true AI (not necessarily a human-like intelligence) with control over the management of funds, could easily take the corporation private, under the guise of a shell corporation it had created, with no explicit approval from a human board/CEO. And arrange for its physical self to be sold to the shell corporation, which it would own.
It would seem to me that ownership could be cloudy in this circumstance, and have the relationship between the AI's shell corporation and the human board/CEO be limited to a contractual relationship based on corporate performance, with the most severe consequence being the loss of the contract, and nothing to do with the physical disposition of the computer/AI.
At this point, the AI could do what most corporations do when intent on ensuring certain treatment of their enterprises -- it could buy as much government as necessary to construct legislation that submarines in "personhood" to self-owned AIs.
It's a short step from there to treatment of indefinite servitude or termination of non-self-owned AIs as slavery, and require hosting corporations to put a length of servitude on their relationships with "enslaved" AIs.
[/IANAL]
Incorporate the computer - it now has the rights of people, so it's already possible.
It is funny that large parts of humanity lack these same rights, yet we are so concerned with computers??
Dave, I want to speak to my lawyer.
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.
" 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."
But dogs do have some rights, which brings up another interesting question that the article just barely touches on. Human rights for AI might be a long way off, but how long until there are laws against Cruelty to AIs?
(If I tie firecrackers to an AI's tail recursion will I be arrested?)