Robots 'will demand rights'

[Brendan]

Don't you remember the Battle of Canary Warf?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yPWyFZEdY0s/SISQUdv7mrI/AAAAAAAAEOs/qDsTojM5Tm0/s400/canarywharf.jpg

[The Chair]

This is getting dangerously close to be being teleported, or beamed down, to the Lounge....

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Does The Chair possess a TARDIS?

[silverfox]

Thanks Chair, now back on topic.

'Scientists fear a revolt by killer robots'

'...scientists are privately so worried they may be creating machines which end up outsmarting ? and perhaps even endangering ? humans that they held a secret meeting to discuss limiting their research.

At the conference, held behind closed doors in Monterey Bay, California, leading researchers warned that mankind might lose control over computer-based systems ... and have already reached a level of indestructibility comparable with a cockroach.

...We?re rapidly approaching the time when new robots should undergo tests, similar to ethical and clinical trials for new drugs, before they can be introduced ...

Scientists are particularly worried about the way the latest, highly sophisticated artificially intelligent products perform human-like functions ...that ?learn? their owner?s behaviour, can open the front door and even find electrical outlets and recharge themselves so they never stop working ...

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6736130.ece

[Jeremy]

The article is totally in the realms of sci-fi. Even if self-aware artificial intelligence ever does become possible, it will be so far in the future, that any current debate is redundant.

It's a pseudo-intellectual article, revolving around a fictional premise, and a dilema which will probably never occur.

[HAL9000]

Robotics and AI have been major military research areas for at least half a century. It is said that classified military technology can be as much as thirty years ahead of what is in the public domain. Who else is interested in killer robots?

I think it is reasonable to suspect that the scientists at Monterey Bay were discussing classified military technology because there is very little in the public domain today that would warrant such concern.

[silverfox]

Jeremy said:

"... Even if self-aware artificial intelligence ever does become possible, it will be so far in the future, that any current debate is redundant ..."

Agree that the article was pseudo-scientific, science for the people if you like, but scientific and technological breakthroughs do have a habit of leaving us playing catch-up ie, the ethical and legal dilemmas caused by cloning and stem cell research using aborted foetuses etc.

So I can't agree that current debate on future but foreseeable events is redundant. Better we start thinking about these matters now with the moral and legal issues they will throw up. Besides, criminals are already taking advantage of weaknesses in the rudimentary robots on the domestic market, ie if a child's pre-programmed teddy bear can take pictures and email them to you or text you then it can be hacked by criminals to take pictures of your house etc.

Also, Hal's point above. Much technology that changes our way of life, eg, mobile phones and possibly the internet, are only released to the domestic market when the military has finished with the technology and anything potentially of use to the military is embargoed until they've assessed its usefulness. What we consider to be the latest must-have state of the art gizmo is probably old hat to those in the know.

[Huguenot]

"...and stem cell research using aborted foetuses"

That's the kind of unnecessary casual aboslute w*nk that removes reasonable people from public debate.

This is about robots, but you need to have an agenda. Gah.

Back on robots, what do we think of Asimov's laws, and, of course, the zeroth.

[silverfox]

Huguenot said:

"That's the kind of unnecessary casual aboslute w*nk that removes reasonable people from public debate.

This is about robots, but you need to have an agenda. Gah ..."

I'm not sure what I've done wrong to deserve your attack on me, Huguenot, except state a fact that you may find unpalatable. There is no agenda here. The example was one of two used in my reply to Jeremy concerning how advances in science can lead to society having to address ethical and legal problems that haven't previously been allowed for because scientific advances can lead to us playing catch-up - therefore if we can anticipate potential problems in the future concerning robots we should address these questions now, the issue is not redundant in the present.

If I remember correctly, it was the present state of technology which required the use of embryos in that field that led to authorities around the world introducing regulatory frameworks to meet the newly arisen social and ethical challenge.

No agenda, just fact. I could have used other examples but that one popped into my head while I was replying.

Please expand on your point about Asimov's laws as safeguards for robots and the zeroth.

[Brendan]

Here?s a question to explore. If we do manage to create intelligent robots, essentially creating an individual life is there any reason why we shouldn?t grant it the same rights as we do ourselves?

[mockney piers]

Scientists are handing climate change deniers an absolute gift if they keep hanging atound together saying the world is threatened by killer robots.

I understand they are by definition geeky, but seriously...

Perhaps they should read more culture novels where AI 'minds' are the key to a truly benevolent society where wealth, crime and even death arethings of the past.

[silverfox]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Here?s a question to explore. If we do manage to

> create intelligent robots, essentially creating an

> individual life is there any reason why we

> shouldn?t grant it the same rights as we do

> ourselves?

At first glance Brendan I suppose we should, although some absurdities could arise.

If they met some test that confirms they have human-like intelligence, are sentient, have emotions/feelings then it would be hard to argue against granting them 'human rights'. They could vote, be protected against discrimination etc. Companies could sell them insurance and could insist they have quotas of robots on their staff, one could become prime minister and so on. They could also ask for flexi-time at work but presumably maternity leave would not apply and I'm not sure what age they would have to be to go into a pub on his/her/its own.

But, as Hal mentioned, they could have an intelligence that is unlike human intelligence, but thinking and feeling nevertheless. They might still require some form of rights but not necessarily 'human rights'.

[Huguenot]

Well there you go silverfox, now you're using the term embryo (which is accurate) and not foetus, which is a state of mammalian development. Foetus can be arguably 'human' whereas embryos cannot. I'm disappointed by your casual interchange of the words given the massive moral implications.

That's not an "attack". Those are much worse. No need to go all Sarah Palin and claim oppression.

I'm a big fan of robots.

Asimov explored a strategy based on the 'three laws':

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law

However, whilst these worked on a story-telling level, they became cumbersome when he reviewed robot interaction with human conflict - who to prevent from 'coming to harm' first?

The 'zeroth' law (taking a priority over the first) was created in later stories to accommodate this. It esentially gave 'humanity' priority over a single human.

0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

But that,of course, is quite a judgement call. A robot could, for example, share the views of some on this forum that humanity needs to be reduced from an unworkable 7 billion, to a more practical 2 billion. Dirty stuff.

On another note, I'm an adherent of Turing: at the point that something becomes indistinguishable from a human, it is to all intents and purposes human.

For example, you could all be a figment of my imagination. A fair argument. But since you can't be distinguished from other 'humans' like myself, it's only practical that I treat you as if you are, with all the responsibilities that entails. Sociopaths often struggle with that leap.

[silverfox]

Yes, Huguenot, I deliberately changed it to embryo and have also looked into it a bit more and yes, you're correct, the research uses embryos not foetuses. Given that, your concern that I might have had an agenda was justified and the moral implications of my mistake are huge. I should have checked my facts.

Interesting points you raise, especially the 'Zeroth' law. From a cold logical point of view, the loss of a couple of billion people could be argued to be in the interests of humanity on the whole - frightening thought though.

[Jeremy]

There are some areas of science which we totally failed to foresee.

There are other areas where we have consistently over-estimated future progress, ever since they first hit the radar. AI and robotics are prime examples.

[HAL9000]

It is generally accepted by modern roboticists and specialists in robotics that Asimov's Laws of Robotics are useless in practice.

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On another note, I'm an adherent of Turing: at the

> point that something becomes indistinguishable

> from a human, it is to all intents and purposes

> human.

I think the Turing Test is too simplistic in its approach. It addresses only conversational indistinguishablility. The construct (computer, robot, machine, program - whatever) could be more or less than human-like yet able to configure itself to communicate with humans on their own level, for example.

Does imitation, however good, make a human or merely a human-like construct?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

"Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain." Arthur Weasley.

[silverfox]

Inventor spends Christmas with his perfect woman - a ?30,000 custom-made fembot

Inventor Le Trung spent Christmas Day with the most important woman in his life - his robot Aiko ... Le, ... even bought gifts for his dream girl, who is so lifelike she speaks fluent English and Japanese, helped cook the turkey and hang up decorations.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1238324/Robot-Romance-Inventor-Le-Trung-takes-fembot-girlfriend-Christmas-dinner.html#ixzz0ajS7aAKE

[The Eye]

"As the machines become more sophisticated, they will increasingly seem more like humans and could demand ?human rights?, Anna Russel, from the University of San Diego warns."

Who knows, they may even get an ASBO into the bargain too.

[EDOldie]

Is it ok to have sex with a robot then? Le Trung's looks a bit like a blow up doll. Not that I have ever seen one of course. But is it essentially the same thing. After all nobody gets hurt, do they?

[The Eye]

I think that along with any other 'independent' being, it will be rather like bringing up a child, but one you can turn off at night.

Seriously though, even if humans were capable of creating AI, they're still a very small community to be responsible for the outcome and any negative impact that goes with creating a machine. If we were safe in the knowledge that the boffins had indeed created an android capable of masquerading as a human, would we want it? I think that they'd be overuled by those funding the research in that the governing body/purse-holders would want their scientists to focus on a realistic application for the machine i.e - recovering wounded from the battle field, performing surgery, etc...

Basically, any AI will be created for comercial gain. And the creators will want a return on their astronomic investment. So for my two cents, I don't think there'd be any serious discussion as to whether they should be treated as equals seeing as they'd have known no other life other than to serve humans. Mine would anyway.

As for any hanky panky with a robot, we've all seen what happens when you put your sisters dolls in the microwave.

[SteveT]

The Eye wrote:- android capable of masquerading as a human, would we want it?

Want it! When it's sort of like a woman, with an off switch?? I can only dream of such a development.

This is more important than the flying car we all want.

Wish I owned the patent.

[Jeremy]

Too late.

It has already been done - and as you can see, "she" is almost indistinguishable from the real thing.

http://www.coated.com/le-trung-and-his-robot-wife-93620001/

[SteveT]

Jeremy wrote:- "she" is almost indistinguishable from the real thing.

I think a trip to spec savers wouldn't go amiss Jeremy.