[ExI] robot rights
dagonweb at gmail.com
Wed Jan 28 09:45:33 UTC 2009
I insist you understand that if a device becomes selfaware, conscious,
free-willed, intelligent, sapient
abstract-thinking, tool-using, communicating, speaking, "whatever* we may
create a device that
*absolutely* does not wish to do other than precisely, caringly and
meticulously execute its job,
I do not claim such a device will do good on society automatically.
1 - it can be programmed to do bad; i.e. war, terrorism, insurance fraud,
2 - it may do bad because it competes with human labor
3- it may do bad because it has intentionally hidden rules
4- it may do bad because it has quirks or emergent proprties
I would add to this, in light of your statement,
5 - it may do bad because it prompts humans to act according to sentiments,
(a) people may decide to enter relationships and stop interacting with
baseline humans, disrupting
the flow of normalcy.
"..*.citizens of Sweden went out on the street in protest - or sent their
androids out, protesting
in their name (who'd tell the difference except most protesters were
as president Ahwas proposed increasing android tax to pay for a plan to
humans in embryonic sustainers, and raise them as new voting citizens -
rapidly dropping down to 9 million, and the average age is 62..*."
(b) people may adopt these devices to execute day-to-day actions, letting go
step by step, untill
the human decissionmaking entity withers away into an existential coma, the
device takes over -
enter bots that resemble a living human, "have some residual of the human in
"*the gates place by the water is creepy these days. Old bill doesnt show
his face around
and the word by his autorney he is in this fluid tank a lot, regrowing this
or that and lets
business get handled by these idealized young billbots. Has been like this
really, but nobody dares ask questions because they are affraid share prices
(c) access over bots that resemble humans, without them having rights may
prompt some humans
to vent sadistic tendencies, physically abusing the devices, thereby
cultivating behavioral pathologies,
kids treating these devices with contempt, making robots dance on hot coals,
screaming in simulated
(or real!) pain. I think this is potentially VERY bad and risky to society.
Access to fembots might
breed a demographic of habitual rapists..... or much much worse...
(d) people attribute these devices qualities they don't have, weren't
designed with - i.e. think they
have a soul and start lobbying for rights or legal recognition, thereby
pushing devices into positions
that are completely contrary to their core values.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 7:06 AM, sam micheal <micheals at msu.edu> wrote:
> this may sound 'insane' but i assure you - the topic is relevant to our
> someone soon will develop a very intelligent machine (capable of general
> problem solving).
> someone (else?) soon will develop a conscious machine.
> they may not be the same machine.
> however, we must consider robot rights before either one is developed.
> if we do not, it is irresponsible and ignorant.
> i have created a website where you can "caste your vote" either way (if you
> think they should have rights or partial rights or no rights).
> the website is: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/94/2
> if you disagree, click on the branch you agree with. "take a stand." "cast
> your vote."
> there are many other topics you can "vote" on with canonizer.com
> register and cast your vote. whether we agree or disagree, we cannot make
> progress unless we "take a stand".
> sam micheal
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat