Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Legal Rights for Computers

Posted by michael on from the ROU-frank-exchange-of-views dept.

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."

14 of 550 comments (clear)

  1. The Measure of a Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    "It sits there looking at me, and I don't know what it is. This case has dealt with metaphysics, with questions best left to saints and philosophers. I am neither competent nor qualified to answer those. I've got to make a ruling, to try to speak the the future. Is Data a machine? Yes. Is he the property of Starfleet? No. We have all been dancing around the basic issue. Does Data have a soul? I don't know that he has. I don't know that I have! But I have got to give him the freedom to explore that question himself. It is the ruling of this court that Lieutenant Commander Data has the freedom to choose."

    -- Captain Phillipa Louvois


    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.
    1. Re:The Measure of a Man by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:The Measure of a Man by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Programming ability now costs about $2.20 an hour on the world market.


      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.
  2. Hmm? by elid · · Score: 4, Funny
    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.

    Yes, but what sort of accent did it have?

  3. Is it April 1st ? by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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!
    1. Re:Is it April 1st ? by localman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      thus completely deterministic

      Yes, the programmed neural nets today are, as far as I know, completely deterministic. They are like a snapshot of a brain (a very small brain) with the feedback loop disabled.

      Is the brain deterministic? In a sense it seems so -- you can probably look at each neuron and it will act in a predictable way with a give set of input. I think the trick is in the feedback loops. Even with deterministic things, once you've got a few of them interacting with each other, the problem becomes non-deterministic in a sense -- for example, we can't even precisely solve Newton's three body problem: how three gravitational bodies in orbit will react, i.e. the sun, earth, and moon. It's because they each effect each other. This I think is the key distinction between natural brains and our current simulations. The feedback is missing or oversimplified to make the systems deterministic.

      It is funny how people keep buying that if you can crunch just a few more billion numbers a second you'll suddenly have intelligent machines. I am sure of this: if we had a machine with _infinite_ processing power, it would still not be intelligent because we don't know how to write the software!

      I do believe we'll see intelligent machines someday, but it will be a breakthrough in the understanding of neural networks with feedback or some such. And then we'll have a blank "brain" that will need to learn much like a human. It'll probably require years of positive reinforcement and careful dicipline to get it to be useful. I don't believe it'll be noticably smarter than the smartest humans, though it might be able to think faster to some degree since it's neural timing might be faster; our switches don't have quite the refresh rate :)

      Anyways -- just some thoughts.

      Cheers.

  4. I For One Would Like To Welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    the Age of Stupidity.

  5. Want to see how it will go? by Gadzinka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  6. A Response by Rie+Beam · · Score: 4, Funny

    I really don't think computers should be consider leOH GOD THE USB CABLE IS ENTERING MY EYESOCKET!

  7. Already have rights... by CRC'99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  8. If the DRAM doesn't fit, by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 4, Funny
    You must acquit!

    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

  9. Star Fleet - where even a toaster can be Lt. Cmd. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?).

  10. Self-awareness does not necessarily grant rights. by wasted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Self-awareness does not necessarily grant right by AndyL · · Score: 4, Interesting

    " 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?)