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."
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.
... says the Roboplican nominee.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
And then there is also corporations established by the social robots. I wonder how soon these would get special rights too...
I see laws and rights in most of the world... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals
OR WHAT THE FUCK?
it's scifi nonsense better left for fiction for now.
"Patrick Thibodeau is a senior editor at Computerworld covering the intersection of public policy and globlization and its impact on IT careers. He also writes about high performance computing, data centers including cloud, and enterprise management. In a distant life, he was a weather observer in the Navy, a daily newspaper reporter, and author of a book about the history of New Britain, Conn." He also likes to write bullshit articles and somehow tie Apple into them. who am I kidding, it's computerworld - it's nothing but bullshit.
first make the goddamn cognitive robot that can feel pain, then we'll talk. can your car feel pain because there's a bit counter for faults in it? it can't. once the robots can make a compelling argument that they're cognitive then we're living sci-fi future and can look at the issue again. doesn't this jackass understand the huge leap from simple algorithms in siri to true AI ? why the fuck would you make your robot cognitive to the point that it matters if it has rights even if you could - for sadistic reasons? in which case you certainly wouldn't give it any rights.
next up the movement for rights of rocks - because rocks might have feelings too you know..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
Exactly, until such time as Robots have consciousness and feel pain from abuse, there is nothing inhumane about damaging a robot.
Now, you might have violated someone elses property rights by doing so, but if you own the robot, then there's nothing morally reprehensible about robot death matches.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
The difference is that pets have no rights, but have legal protections. Kids have legal rights (just, for some reason, they are staggered based on age).
Learn to love Alaska
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.
I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Anonymous Coward.
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
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.
I don't get why we should be moral to robots, which can be replaced without any loss, while at the same time we can keep great apes, which are in all ways similar to humans in cages.
They use tools, they speak, they can learn to read and write, they understand abstract concepts, they have memories, they mourn their dead, they cry, they can be angry, happy and sad.
Yet we are allowed to be limit their freedoms, take their homes and use them for medical trials. Why?
Because of anthropocentric arrogance. There is no good reason to not give them something close to human rights.
As long as its your robot you can parts it out do your heart's content.
But if I send my robot down the street to get groceries, I don't want someone yanking its memory modules or salvaging its servos just because it was running around loose and had no feelings.
We really don't have many laws that cover a device that runs around in public spaces doing errands and perhaps spending money (digital or otherwise).
Yes its property, and my property rights may still apply, but I'm not sure that's enough to prevent someone from declaring it abandoned property and partsing it out on the spot.
There are more imminent questions that need to be answered:
Are they licensed like cars to be in public spaces? Carry and spend money? Carry weapons? Plug in and recharge when they need? Be searched by police at will? Will Police disable and memory strip my Asimo just because it might have recorded a police beatdown while passing a dimly lit alley?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
It's funny that, while people are less and less protected from being exploited, here comes the hero wanting to give rights to... robots. Wrong priorities?
Because many Slashdotters have a kneejerk reaction against anything that sounds remotely vegetarian or vegan, even if it's pertinent.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
I'm afraid you missed that joke, Anonymous Coward.
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
The problem is defining 'consciousness' and 'pain'. There's already a robot that can sense damage to its body. Is that pain? If not, why not?
Dilbert RSS feed
Only those who fight for their rights have rights.
Not really. Babies and mentally or physically impaired people also have rights.
Robots that are not programmed to know about rights, and therefore cannot fight to protect them, do not.
So if someone programs a robot to lecture you on rights and get real nasty if you don't agree with it, it does have rights? Sounds like just a crazy machine to me and an inhumane disconnection might be in order.
Also, there are many examples of groups of people who are fighting for rights and not getting anything. In the least robot rights should be considered only when human rights are properly figured out.
Generally the execution of animals is totally acceptable, it's primarily torture and torturous environments that are not, and even then, mostly if people can see it.
Putting a pet to sleep (even with a home brew method) is pretty much completely legal (in the US). Certain types of competitive breeders cull well over 90% of their stock.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
That's an interesting view, but not share by society, otherwise small children wouldn't have any rights.
Dilbert RSS feed
"if we treat animals in inhumane ways, we become inhumane persons. This logically extends to the treatment of robotic companions"
Non sequitur, surely.
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 I buy a car, I can take it home and legally pound on it with a sledge hammer, cut it up with a blow torch, use it for target practice, etc. I could not legally do this with a pet because of animal cruelty laws.
Why should a robot be different than any other machine?
If I can reprogram it to "forget" that it ever happened, did it really happen?
What's the difference between a law that protects animals from cruel and unusual treatments, and a right of not being subjected to such treatments?
Dilbert RSS feed
knock it off with your disingenuous rubbish. Your pantywaist bullshit has created, now, several generations of overly sensitive cowards who can't handle direct confrontation. lack of this basic skill is what's causing americans to lose their liberties for the sake of $GROUP_X's feelings.
Robots are machines. Until they get sentience they are just machines, to be abused as we see fit. Sure humans like to anthropomorphize everything we deal with but when it comes to machines they are not living beings. Robots are just tools to help us do what we can't or won't do ourselves.
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.
The cited article is rather lame. But there's a real issue here that we're going to reach soon. What rights do mobile robots, like self-driving cars have?
As a practical matter, this first came up with some autonomous delivery carts used in hospitals. Originally, they were programmed to be totally submissive about making people get out of their way. They could be stalled indefinitely by people standing and talking in a corridor, or simply by a crowd. They had to be given somewhat more aggressive behaviors to get anything done. There's a serious paper on this: "Go Ahead, Make My Day: Robot conflict resolution by aggressive competition (2000) "
Autonomous vehicles will face this problem in heavy traffic. They will have to deal with harassment. The level of aggressive behavior that will be necessary for, and tolerated from, robot cars has to be worked out. If they're too wimpy, they'll get stuck at on ramps and when making left turns. If they're too aggressive (which, having faster than human reflexes, they might successfully pull off), they'll be hated. So they'll need social feedback on how annoyed people are with them to calibrate their machine learning systems.
I don't know if the Google people have gotten this far yet. The Stanford automatic driving people hadn't, last time I checked.
too late for A.I. Gore but maybe in time for Mitt Robney!!
PS for those about to be pissed off... its a joke
So if we could reliably restore their memories, it would be OK?
Dilbert RSS feed
Can you point out where in the constitution it says they need a warrant to search my robot that was walking around in public?
Fourth Amendment you say?
Maybe you should read up a little bit. If they can stop and frisk YOU for nothing more than walking while black, they can certainly detain and drain your robot.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Well, pain is a pretty effective evolutionary development, overwhelming immediate aversion to damage, followed by a lingering reminder that a part was damaged.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
No he accused us of double standards. His comment was that because higher primates demonstrate higher thinking, sentience, rationality, communications and abstract thought, it should be morally reprehensible to use them in an inhumane fashion. The fact that people have and do use one another that way sort of puts a finer point on his argument.
We are a moral species who commits immoral acts. In an attempt to broaden moral practices do we include other species and even machines as surrogates for human beings, to make certain we've bred moral behavior into the populace. This is a valid and important question. If we become emotionally attached to our machines (you guys know who you are... beware metal fever), does it behoove us to treat them with respect up to and including rights to insure that we treat one another with that same level of dignity. Seems like a long way to go, just to assure that we behave like higher life forms, but I'd consider it if it improved human behavior. In the end, I don't know what it will take to get people to behave, but I'm open to ideas.
So does this mean I'll need to stop experimenting on robots?
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.
He didn't miss the reference, just the point of humor itself .. could be a robot posting, they're not known for their senses of humor.
My other UID is three digits.
Both
Person A kills dog belonging to Person A
and
Person A kills cow belonging to Person A
are both actionable and legal. It is the method of killing that matters not the killing itself.
If a person suffers from late stage Alzheimer's, is it OK to beat them up?
If you're a dominatrix and they are your paying customer, then I would say, yes, it is OK to beat them up. Depending on your religion/moral/social beliefs you may disagree with this example, but it's nonetheless accurate.
Context is everything in a discussion like this. The question that needs to be asked, is does the entity, human or robotic, want to be beaten up? Or rather, in the case of their not making the decision, would beating the entity up violate the entities desires? ie, that it doesn't want to be beaten up.
Animals want to be not beaten.
Alzheimer sufferers probably want to be not beaten also, the above example being an exception.
Thus choosing to beat them violates their rights, because it interferes with their choice to not be beaten.
If a robot can't make that decision. If a program can't decide, for itself, that it doesn't want to be beaten, then there's no violation in beating it.
To be able to make that choice, it would also have to be aware under which circumstances it would take a beating. For example, would it take a beating to protect a friend? Might it accept some beating to play a sport?
Until something has a desire for something to *not* happen, or if something is unable to to form a desire for that act to *not* happen, then there's no reason for whatever it is to have the right for that not to happen.
Beating up a social robot might offend the owner, but that violates the owners rights, not the robots.
So until robots can develop such a desire themselves, then giving them rights is not a good idea.
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
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.
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
As someone who is lazy and doesn't want to "work" this can't come quick enough for me, but sadly I don't think it's going to be before I retire in twenty years or so.
The problem is, of course, that it will require a move towards some form of communism/socialism and I can't see that happening in places like the US without a serious revolution.
It would just be nice if we could learn from the lessons of history and prepare for the future in a more orderly and planned way, but this is almost certainly wishful thinking.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it