Do Electric Sheep Dream of Civil Rights?

holy_calamity writes "Hot on the heals of a UK government report that predicted robots would demand citizens rights within fifty years, an Arizona state lawyer has suggested that sub-human robots should have rights too. Harming animals far below human capabilities is thought unethical — would you ever feel bad about kicking a robot dog? And can we expect militant campaigners to target robot labs as they do animal labs today?"

Comments

Fake

[Cafe Alpha]

No doubt the first "robot" to demand civil rights will be deliberately programmed to pretend sentience and to demand civil rights.

Re:Fake

[Daniel_Staal]

Not only are they on the wrong track for AI, but they are actually on the wrong track for this problem as well.

The base reason you don't kick a dog is because it hurts the dog, and the dog can't easily be repaired, in either programming or mechanicals. (Both of which are harmed.) You have damaged the dog and nothing can be done about it. So we have rules about letting you do it.

Both programing and mechanicals of a robot, for any bot we can design today, are reparable. So there is an easier solution: If you damage a robot, you have to pay the owner to have the damage fixed, and the downtime for the repair.

Then if we ever manage to make 'smart' robots that could ask for rights, we just assign them some self-ownership. Then if you damage one, you have to pay it to so it can fix the damage. At this point the problem becomes self-solving, especially as a robot's time becomes worth more.

Re:Fake

[MrNaz]

I have never even met an animal rights activist, and I can easily see that you are about as clued in on this topic as a turnip.

The animals' rights movement is based on the idea that humans, having greater intelligence than all other species as well as the intangible quality we call "sentience", has a responsibilty for the welfare of the world, and its contents. All animals only seek resources that are needed for survival. Our desire for things over and above this, such as widescreen TVs and a bigger SUV than our neighbour, indicates that there is a fundamental difference between humans and other species.

Based on the greater burden each human places on the Earth relative to individuals of other species, human civilisation has recognised a need to act responsibly. Monkeys do not create modifications to their trees capable of polluting the entire forest into a desert, and whales don't create oil slicks. Our ability to affect far more than just our immediate surroundings and co-opt the forces of chemistry, physics and biology to our own endsis what gives rise to this moral responsibility. The fact that we can understand the very concept of "morality" is what gives us the moral responsibility to use it.

"Management" you say? So I can transport and kill them in the most economically efficient manner I please despite causing them great physical pain? The idea that a dumb animal does not need to be treated with respect because it is incapable of vocalising the concept is laughably stupid. I humbly suggest you refrain from using terms like "intellectually bankrupt". *walks away mumbling something about a pot and a kettle*

I'm in shit...

[grub]

My RealDoll will have me arrested for rape.

Priorities, priorities...

[MidVicious]

It's so good to see that the delegation of priorities regarding Human Rights has now moved Robot one notch above Dark Skinned Human.

Thankfully, it's still one notch below Canine.

Poor argument

[Per Abrahamsen]

A three weeks old baby doesn't understand the concept of rights either, yet it is protected by them. Unless you want to increase the legal abortion age to around two years after birth, you have to find a better argument.

A similar argument can be made with severely retarded and some kind of insane people.

Re:What the FUCK?

[Kynmore]

where the grizzly bears live with no firearm

I think it is unjust for the Canadian government to ban bears from owning firearms, especialy those who live in the wilderness.

Re:No bots harmed

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> would you ever feel bad about kicking a robot dog?

I can see the legislation now:

"Laws of Robot Rights: Title MVIX, Article 12, Section 14, Subsection 8: The kicking of robot dogs shall be forbidden except for robot dogs created for the purpose of being kicked. Said kickable robot dogs shall not experience pain as a result of being kicked, either directly or as a result of bouncing into things. 'Pain', for the purpose of this subsection, shall include the perception of physical pain as well as mental anguish and mental disabilities or disfigurements or suffering as a result from experiencing the kick, whether the kick was physically painful or not. 'Kick', for the purpose of this subsection, shall include both the direct impact by the intentional foot of a human, or robot acting directly or indirectly under the orders of a human, or the subsequent impacts from bouncing around, but shall expressly not include the accidental impact of a human's foot, or the foot of a robot acting directly or indirectly under the orders of a human. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as waiving the right of the robot dog to sue in the case of accidental kicks from humans, robots, or normal animals of any kind, pursuant to other enabling legislation in this Act or others, and this clause is severable pending court rulings."

Re:No bots harmed

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

And the inevitable Supreme Court rulings:

2027: Jeebus v. Fidooid -- A hand transplanted onto a leg counts as a kick, both as a direct impact as well as counting under the "subsequent bounces" clause.

2035: Tainted Love v. United States of America -- A bionic leg with an inherent (and at least) Class 12 intellect counts as a robotic actor for the purpose of an intentional kick, and is therefore not an accidental kick, even if the biocybernetic-half issued specific neural orders to not kick the robot dog.

2047: Brutus v. South Dakota -- A state law allowing sexbot robodogs counts as authorizing a kickable dog, but the federal law still applies in that the sexrobodogbot must not experience pain, even if it is a masochist model designed to enjoy the pain.