Slashdot Mirror
Social Robots May Gain Legal Rights, Says MIT Researcher
dcblogs writes "Social robots — machines with the ability to do grocery shopping, fix dinner and discuss the day's news — may gain limited rights, similar to those granted to pets. Kate Darling, a research specialist at the MIT Media Lab, looks at this broad issue in a recent paper, 'Extending Legal Rights to Social Robots.' 'The Kantian philosophical argument for preventing cruelty to animals is that our actions towards non-humans reflect our morality — if we treat animals in inhumane ways, we become inhumane persons. This logically extends to the treatment of robotic companions. Granting them protection may encourage us and our children to behave in a way that we generally regard as morally correct, or at least in a way that makes our cohabitation more agreeable or efficient.' If a company can make a robot that leaves the factory with rights, the marketing potential, as Darling notes, may be significant."
makes me want to damage social robots to prove a point
pandering to morons.....
Kant's argument is pretty unfashionable these days, since it rejects the idea that animals have rights for their own sake. It's still the best one, IMO, but good luck selling this to university ethics departments.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Anthropomorphizing a machine because it mimics human behavior and then using that to justify giving it rights is a poor idea.
At some point in the distant future, when we arrive at the 'blade runner' level of replicant, then the issue can be picked up again. But don't put the cart before the horse.
This looks like click-bait, but I just can't help myself.
In our capitalist society, robots already have limited rights by virtue of the fact that they're private property and they're still going to be expensive (for a little while at least). That fact alone gives more protection to robots than most dogs, from outsiders who may want to harm our pets, or damage our robots.
And I don't see a law protecting a robot from its own owner anytime soon. Cruelty to a robot is not even going to be considered an issue. Now, if we're talking about a visually impaired person having his prosthetic camera-eye forcibly ripped out of his head, then yes, that would be hell of cruel, but cruel to the visually impaired disabled person, not necessarily cruel to the tool.
Subjects like this need a bit more "Let's cross that bridge when we come to it" not to mention being already well covered in books by the likes of Asimov. The economic impact of the coming robot revolution (robolution). Now that is potentially interesting. My guess is the most robots are going to be more like insects; but insects we control. This whole put a human face on a robot is a joke. We have lots of humans so why make a metallic crappy human. But I do want a robot to make things, paint my house, clean my floors, plant food, pick food, eat bugs, etc. I don't want to talk with it. I don't see the economic point of a robot that really interacts with us. They blah blah about old people but I suspect old people would prefer real humans to talk with as well.
The only way I see a robot who needs some legal rights will be if some system becomes self-aware and wants to walk around inside a robot body.
next up the movement for rights of rocks - because rocks might have feelings too you know..
I'm an animist you insensitive clod!
Ironically, calling somebody an insensitive clod is offensive and mineralist. Why can't rocks, clods, and earthy lumps of all shapes and colors just get along?
That's an interesting view, but not share by society, otherwise small children wouldn't have any rights.
Dilbert RSS feed
They certainly don't have as many rights as horses, or house cats, or puppies, do they?
And that is exactly the point made in the article: that robotic "companions" may eventually be granted this additional protection, not because they are fundamentally different from a Roomba or a toaster oven, but because WE attach to them in a fundamentally different way than we would a Roomba or a toaster oven - we anthropomorphize them and project emotional and mental states onto them; we grow attached to them, and in some way, extending legal protections to them is a concession to OUR OWN emotions FOR the other thing, more than any inherent quality of the thing itself.
If a person suffers from late stage Alzheimer's, is it OK to beat them up?
Dilbert RSS feed
LBGT people can't even get the same civil rights as straight people, what makes you think social robots will be able to get any civil rights at all? They would have to start a war in order to get any civil rights.
Ok, I'll bite.
Humans unlike corporations, are people. They live, they die, they experience fear, and repeated pain has crippling side effects, that we all bear the cost for.
My Volt has detected my damaged trunk latch for thousands of miles. It's just a reading from a sensor that registers a different color for me to see and changes the car's behavior (it won't autolock when the trunk is unlatched). I will fix it at the next payday. No one who observes this behavior will "feel empathy for the car's pain" or think ill of me for allowing it to go on for a couple months (ok, they might ascertain that I'm a cheapskate, but I'm not denying that).
No child who observes this will ever assume that I will allow their broken fingers to go unmended until the next convenient paycheck. Or put off a veterinary visit for the same reason.
Anthropomophizing machines will not enable you to create better policy than any other fantasy belief system.
Not surprising, the people can be hurt, can sue, demand actual money for work, demand breaks and even time for sleep. Why should any corporation want meatsacks? Well except for the CEO and board of course, no way a machine could ever take the place of the "job creators" you know.
Seriously though this is why I've said for years, screams from the right notwithstanding, that capitalism like every other ism before it is doomed. The simple fact is we have reached a point where technology no longer empowers the individual to do more work with less effort but replaces the individual completely. Factories where thousands worked in the 50s and 60s can now be run by a couple of glorified button pushers while everything else is completely automated, hell you could replace a good 90% of the people in the services industry, nothing done in your local Walmart of Mickey D's that couldn't be done by automated assembly lines and robots. I would argue that the ONLY reason you haven't seen that done is the government uses those industries as "make work" with subsidies thus making humans cheaper to use than they actually are. See how new Walmart employees get shown training videos on how to apply for government aid for an example.
In the end capitalism breaks down when the entire basis of the system, a person trading their labor for capital, is broken thanks to the ever advancing technology. Even jobs in places we wouldn't think would be replaced are gonna end up phased out, see the rise of disposable high tech instead of repairs and smart self diagnosing servers. There are even systems being tested that will lay down a road or build a house from prefabbed parts without human interaction, all automated.
If we are gonna avoid major wars and upheaval we are just gonna have to accept the fact that many individuals being born now, and I would argue quite a few living right now, will have to be paid to not work for the rest of their lives. Not because they are lazy or don't want to work, but because their labor is simply no longer required. The machines don't get tired or sick, take breaks or need medical leave, and will work 24/7 and can be exposed to things that will sicken or kill humans so the machine is simply the better choice long term.
You could probably wipe out a good 45% of the population planetwide and not only would you not affect the quality of life more likely it would go up across the board. We simply have to accept the fact there comes a point when the old ways no longer work and I would say we are already beginning to see that, with the wealth concentration in the hands of so few (who can afford the factories filled with machines) while the average worker can kill themselves working as hard as they can and never get above where they are now. If our system doesn't change we are gonna have ever growing masses of poor and unemployed and that is when things traditionally get nasty.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Nice post you wrote there. I think the same.
It's really idiotic that our productivity has never been so high, yet employed people are being forced to work more and more hours but getting paid less and less. Meanwhile there is a growing mass of unemployed and the social benefits are being cut really hard throughout all the developed world. It just doesn't make sense and it can't end well. It's unsustainable.
It all comes down to the ownership of the means of production. If they're privately owned, the robots will work to make a few people very very rich while the rest of the populace lives in a Mad Max wasteland. If the ownership is socialised, the benefits of the increased productivity will be shared by every one. People can work less hours, or not work at all, and still be able to make a living.
And before people start ranting about "nobody will want to do anything, then", I call your attention to some examples: In Ancient Greece, the slaves did all the work. That's when unoccupied citizens created Democracy and made great advancements in human knowledge, like Mathematics and Philosophy. Most of the great scientists and philosophers up until the XX century were rich heirs that had nothing to do and didn't want to manage their family businesses. They ended up advancing the human knowledge. Sure, when machines do all the work, lots of people will choose to indulge in sex and drugs, but lots of them will work hard in whatever field they like, be it philosophy, politics, history, science and technology, medicine, arts, music, whatever makes us humans and not just animals. And they will compete among each other, not for a piece of bread, but for glory, fame, babes, whatever. Merit will not suddenly vanish.