UK Government Study: Freedom for Robots?

[Gfted1]

Linky

 

Dec 20, 12:03 PM (ET)

 

By RAPHAEL G. SATTER

 

LONDON (AP) - Robots might one day be smart enough to demand emancipation from their human owners, raising the prospects they'll have to be treated as citizens, according to a speculative paper released by the British government.

 

Among the warnings: a "monumental shift" could occur if robots were developed to the point where they could reproduce, improve or think for themselves.

 

"Correctly managed, there is a very real possibility for increased labor output and greater intelligence to be provided by robots that will ultimate lead to greater human prosperity and an improvement of the human condition," it said.

 

However, it warned that robots could sue for their rights if these were denied to them.

 

 

Should they prove successful, the paper said, "states will be obligated to provide full social benefits to them including income support, housing and possibly robo-healthcare to fix the machines over time."

 

The paper did not address the likelihood such a rights-seeking robot would be developed, and it predicted the issue would not come up for at least another 20 years.

 

But innovations raised in other papers issued Wednesday, including artificial retinas and drugs for dramatically lengthened lifespans, were thought to be only a decade away.

 

The research, commissioned by the U.K. Office of Science and Innovation's Horizon Scanning Center, looks ahead to the year 2056 to identify issues "of potentially significant impact or opportunity." It was put together by British research company Ipsos-MORI, the consultancy Outsights and the American-based Institute for the Future.

 

"We're not in the business of predicting the future, but we do need to explore the broadest range of different possibilities to help ensure government is prepared in the long term and considers issues across the spectrum in its planning," said Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser.

 

The papers, he added, "are aimed at stimulating debate and critical discussion to enhance government's short and long term policy and strategy."

 

Interesting concept, non-living entities being given the same rights as living organisms. Does an sufficiently advanced AI equal "living"? Does "decision making" equal "living"? Why wouldnt animals be given these same rights, because they cannot speak in a language we understand?

 

Your thoughts?

[Oerwinde]

Linky

 

Dec 20, 12:03 PM (ET)

 

By RAPHAEL G. SATTER

 

LONDON (AP) - Robots might one day be smart enough to demand emancipation from their human owners, raising the prospects they'll have to be treated as citizens, according to a speculative paper released by the British government.

 

Among the warnings: a "monumental shift" could occur if robots were developed to the point where they could reproduce, improve or think for themselves.

 

"Correctly managed, there is a very real possibility for increased labor output and greater intelligence to be provided by robots that will ultimate lead to greater human prosperity and an improvement of the human condition," it said.

 

However, it warned that robots could sue for their rights if these were denied to them.

 

 

Should they prove successful, the paper said, "states will be obligated to provide full social benefits to them including income support, housing and possibly robo-healthcare to fix the machines over time."

 

The paper did not address the likelihood such a rights-seeking robot would be developed, and it predicted the issue would not come up for at least another 20 years.

 

But innovations raised in other papers issued Wednesday, including artificial retinas and drugs for dramatically lengthened lifespans, were thought to be only a decade away.

 

The research, commissioned by the U.K. Office of Science and Innovation's Horizon Scanning Center, looks ahead to the year 2056 to identify issues "of potentially significant impact or opportunity." It was put together by British research company Ipsos-MORI, the consultancy Outsights and the American-based Institute for the Future.

 

"We're not in the business of predicting the future, but we do need to explore the broadest range of different possibilities to help ensure government is prepared in the long term and considers issues across the spectrum in its planning," said Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser.

 

The papers, he added, "are aimed at stimulating debate and critical discussion to enhance government's short and long term policy and strategy."

 

Interesting concept, non-living entities being given the same rights as living organisms. Does an sufficiently advanced AI equal "living"? Does "decision making" equal "living"? Why wouldnt animals be given these same rights, because they cannot speak in a language we understand?

 

Your thoughts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If they become self aware and have feelings enough that they demand rights, I'd consider them living.

[Sand]

Agreed.

[Gfted1]

Hmm, so why not the same rights for all living things?

[astr0creep]

Animals should have more right imo. At least before robots do.

[Sand]

Because not all living things are capable of conscience or thought.

[astr0creep]

Because not all living things are capable of conscience or thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You think animals have no conscience or thought?

[Hurlshort]

If the robot can sue for rights, that puts it above animals. My cat is terrible at paperwork, and so I'm not too worried about a lawsuit if her litter gets a bit back up.

[Kalfear]

Because not all living things are capable of conscience or thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

bah that makes no sence, my cat definately has conscious thought but still lacks many of the rights I enjoy each and every day.

 

Dogs obviously (well some anyways as dogs only slightly more intellegent then cows) have conscious thought but obviously lack in the rights dept.

 

Actually I cant think of ONE living animal that doesnt have conscious thought but ALL lack in the rights dept.

 

Im not a vegin by any stretch but if your going tpo make a insane statement like Sand did, at least try to back it up!

Edited December 20, 2006 by Kalfear

[Sand]

An animal cannot go and look in a mirror and realize that it is a reflection and not just another animal. An animal is not self aware. A robot, given advancement in technology, may not just become self aware but be able surpass its creators in intelligence. Our closest cousin, the chimpanzee, if properly trained and educated, can reach this level but a dog or cat cannot. Then again I do not classify many primates in the same classification as animals due to this.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Sand

[astr0creep]

An animal cannot go and look in a mirror and realize that it is a reflection and not just another animal.  An animal is not self aware.  A robot, given advancement in technology, may not just become self aware but be able surpass its creators in intelligence.  Our closest cousin, the chimpanzee, if properly trained and educated, can reach this level but a dog or cat cannot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Children have rights, from the day they are born. If they can't speak for themselves, someone will. I don't see why no one can speak on behalf of animals who's rights have been violated.

[Sand]

Children are human, well most of them, and such given protections to ensure survival. We are talking about fully developed beings here, not newborns. Also animals do have rights. At least they do here in Iowa. We have a number of laws that makes animal cruelty a criminal offense.

[astr0creep]

Children are human, well most of them, and such given protections to ensure survival.  We are talking about fully developed beings here, not newborns.  Also animals do have rights.  At least they do here in Iowa.  We have a number of laws that makes animal cruelty a criminal offense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Animal rights are a joke.

If someone kills a dog in Texas, he will get a fine.

If someone kills a human in Texas, he will get fried.

 

Animals should have the same rights to live as humans do, with much greater penalties that are given now. They are living, breathing creatures that contribute to the lives of everything on this planet, which is more than anyone can say about humans in this day and age.

 

Robots on the other hand are and will always be a product of humans. They will never develop a conscience of their own unless this faculty is programmed by a human. Do cars have rights? No. And neither can robots.

[~Di]

Rights for robots? LOL. I think not. As for the "conscious thought" thing, a robot is not cabable of conscious thought. A robot is only capable of processing variables that have been programmed into it. Therefore, a robot can "sue" for its "rights" simply by virtue of that process having been programmed into it.

 

As far as I'm concerned, a robot has no more right to rights than does my PC.

 

My cats, on the other hand, is quite self-aware, cognizant and brilliant. If they had fingers, they would rule the world. They deserve rights. A tangle of bits and bytes does not.

[Lare Kikkeli]

An animal cannot go and look in a mirror and realize that it is a reflection and not just another animal.  An animal is not self aware.  A robot, given advancement in technology, may not just become self aware but be able surpass its creators in intelligence.  Our closest cousin, the chimpanzee, if properly trained and educated, can reach this level but a dog or cat cannot.  Then again I do not classify many primates in the same classification as animals due to this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I don't get your point, animals feel pain, they suffer just like us. I went to a zoo when i was in india and i can tell you, seeing a hyeena (or whatever it was, it was a long time ago) running around in a 2mx2m cage is pretty heart wrenching and i'd give it the rights to live free in a second. All living beings should have rights, if nothing else than the right to not be killed or driven insane by our need of amusement or "progress".

Edited December 20, 2006 by Lare Kikkeli

[Sand]

Animal rights are a joke.

If someone kills a dog in Texas, he will get a fine.

If someone kills a human in Texas, he will get fried.

 

If you kill an animal in Iowa in a cruel and inhumane way you will not get fined. You will get years in prison.

[astr0creep]

Animal rights are a joke.

If someone kills a dog in Texas, he will get a fine.

If someone kills a human in Texas, he will get fried.

 

If you kill an animal in Iowa in a cruel and inhumane way you will not get fined. You will get years in prison.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

And if someone murders a child in a similar way, would you be for the death penalty in this case?

Edited December 20, 2006 by astr0creep

[Gfted1]

I cant wait for the day my cell phone sues me for damages because I dropped it.

 

What if my phone becomes evil and greedy?

 

Me: "Whoops" *drops Phone*

My phone: "Oooow, whiplash!" *ejects some keys for added effect*

Me: "OMG, are you alright?"

My phone: "You idiot, wtf is the matter with you! Im sueing!"

 

Judge: "Mr. Gfted1, please stand for your verdict." "You have been found guilty of abuse of your phone and must pay it restitution for the repair of its keys. Furthermore you are required to pay for a nice home for this phone where it will rest and rehabilitate."

My phone: "Judge! Id also like a restraining order to keep this monster at least 200ft away at all times."

Judge: "Motion granted."

[kirottu]

An animal cannot go and look in a mirror and realize that it is a reflection and not just another animal. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Certain apes, dolphins and elephants can see that it is a reflection and not another animal.

[astr0creep]

An animal cannot go and look in a mirror and realize that it is a reflection and not just another animal. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Certain apes, dolphins and elephants can see that it is a reflection and not another animal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Certain cats, dogs, hamsters and lizards can do the same. Just like humans, some animals are smarter than others.

[Aram]

If the robots ever become self aware, the real question is will they allow us to have the same rights as them.

[astr0creep]

If the robots ever become self aware, the real question is will they allow us to have the same rights as them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My guess would be no.

 

:D

Edited December 20, 2006 by astr0creep

[kirottu]

An animal cannot go and look in a mirror and realize that it is a reflection and not just another animal. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Certain apes, dolphins and elephants can see that it is a reflection and not another animal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Certain cats, dogs, hamsters and lizards can do the same. Just like humans, some animals are smarter than others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I meant certain ape species, dolphins and elephants. Not as individual animals, but as species. Also, they can use the mirror image. Elephants could touch marked spot on their head that they saw through mirror and stuff like that.

[Pop]

Who knew that a discussion of robot's rights would yield a discusssion of "animal rights"? Not me.

 

By the Kantian definition, self-aware robots could very well be given rights. If they have the ability to reason, the ability to reflect on their actions, needs & desires, and a free will (that is, being the innate cause of their actions) then they would be considered "human", for all intents and purposes, and they would be afforded the same rights any other being fitting those criteria would be.

 

As for me, I've got no problem killing and eating a robot or an animal if it tastes good, I want to eat it and it has no moral space, meaning it cannot recognize its own rights nor recognize the rights of others (and therefore be unable to adhere to a Contract). Nor do I have a problem with differentiating between humans and animals, and saying that they are not equal, for that reason.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Pop

[Azarkon]

What. The. Fudge.

 

Nevermind the fact that we don't know the first thing about how to construct truly intelligent AI. Nevermind the fact that we still haven't been able to get robots to move gracefully on two legs (at least consistently). Nevermind the fact that we don't even have the most rudimentary idea on how to generate "consciousness" (nor a definition of what "consciousness" is), or a clue about how the billions of neurons in the human brain connect to form who we are. Nevermind any of that - let's just give robots rights now, because you never know when they'll need it :D

 

Sounds like some people have been watching too much Battlestar Galactica.