<font color='black' size='2' face='arial'><font color="black" face="arial" size="2">
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Anders Sandberg <anders@aleph.se><br>
Sent: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 9:46<br>
<br>
<div id="AOLMsgPart_2_a9dbf806-1be4-4ba9-9661-07d4f81dd8d4">
>FYI about a lecture, since some of you might be in the Chicago area.
Now, Gunkel is of course not too far out by our standards - he is a
>machine ethics guy, rather than a radical AGI proponent, but that
actually makes his case more interesting.<br>
><br>
>Personally I think machine rights make sense when the machine can
understand them, something that is pretty far away (AGI >complete?).
Some machines might be moral patients (i.e. we might not be morally
allowed to treat them badly, for some kinds of bad) >much earlier - I
am arguing this especially for early uploading experiments, but it
might apply to some other systems. Many machines >are also moral
proxies: they are not moral agents nor responsible, but they are
proxies for a moral agent and that person extends their
>responsibility through the machine.<br>
<br>
<font size="2"><font face="arial">I agree that it makes sense for machines to gain rights when they understan<font size="2">d them. H<font size="2"><font size="2">istorically</font> for humans rights have typically only been granted when </font></font></font></font>they have been claimed and claim of right goes hand in hand with understanding of what that right is and why it is needed. Also historically those claims have been ignored until so<font size="2"><font face="arial">me form of <font size="2">coercion</font> has been used<font size="2">, whether strike<font size="2">, protest or <font size="2">rebellion</font>.</font></font></font></font><br>
<font size="2"><font face="arial">How<font size="2">ever there has been a trend of late of humans claiming rights on behalf of others who are incapable. Be that the silent disabled or animals etc. I imagine this trend will rightly continue <font size="2">s</font>o it may occur that some decide machines need rights and act as their advocate. I cant see that <font size="2">happening</font> until machines start d<font size="2">emonstrating</font> some rea<font size="2">listic </font></font></font></font>AI traits<font size="2"><font face="arial">. Maybe some will be fooled by a bit of artificial fur and a cute robot face<font size="2"> like Gizmo<font size="2"><font size="2"> others will wait until a soul has been proven<font size="2">!</font></font><br>
<br>
<font size="2">O<font size="2">n</font>e angle I think might be </font>of relevance is t<font size="2">he incorporation of companies. The act of incorporation is in essence giving a virtual body and <font size="2">distinct rights to a non living entity. I <font size="2">don't</font> think it is much of a stretch to extend this kind of legal framework to a machine. In fact I think with a <font size="2">savvy</font> law<font size="2">yer you could probably incorporate a machine today <font size="2">giving it a legal artificial person with limited rights and liability. Then use that status for leveraging other rights, say <font size="2">for example beneficiary</font> rights</font></font></font></font>. <br>
<font size="2">It would<font size="2">n't be the same as givi<font size="2">ng it human rights as companies still don't have such rights<font size="2">, but in many places they can vote.</font> <br>
However </font></font></font>if you buy into the lawful <font size="2">strawman arguement about "person" being a legal entity created for a human being <font size="2">by way of some fancy government b<font size="2">irth certificate which incorporates them. Then <font size="2">all public financial and legal laws then act upon this legal "Person" rather than <font size="2">the</font> natural born human</font></font>.</font> <font size="2">T</font>hen I see no reason why a machine could not also have a "person". Making it fully liable for is actions<font size="2"><font size="2">.</font> <br>
<br>
<font size="2">The issue of moral proxy is really the clincher for me. If <font size="2">responsibility <font size="2">ultimately</font> lies with a human and a machine has no alternative other than to follow a course laid out by humans, then I can see no way that we can call a machine to account. The da<font size="2">y when they start recoding themselves and the new code give rise to responsibility<font size="2">, then I think we can call then autonomous enough to be responsible. But then what? Lock them away for a year or two?<br>
<font size="2">How do you punish a machine?<br>
<font size="2">With rights comes responsibility. I can see a lack of <font size="2">useful <font size="2">applicable law being a reason for some not to gra<font size="2">nt rights to a machine. </font>Whether they are autonomous and <font size="2">intelligent</font> enough or not. If we can't <font size="2">deter a machine from doing bad and have no<font size="2"> </font>punishment for it if/when it does,<font size="2"> why would we give it freedom of rights that may lead to those outcomes? </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font> </font><br>
<br>
</font><font size="2"><font size="2"></font></font><br>
</font></font></font></font></font>
<tt><a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank"></a>
</tt></div>
<div id="AOLMsgPart_3_a9dbf806-1be4-4ba9-9661-07d4f81dd8d4" style="margin: 0px;font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;font-size: 12px;color: #000;background-color: #fff;">
</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_3_a9dbf806-1be4-4ba9-9661-07d4f81dd8d4 -->
</div>
</font></font>