It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Future Robots May be Considered “Electronic Persons”

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767


...As for the EU parliament they are getting paid to debate even this



Not just the EU - China, Japan and South Korea have already addressed the issue.




... will we ever see a true human age, not one of human's fighting day to day to survive but one of human's becoming a universal humanity.



Yes. A problem already compounded by emerging AI:

Disruptive Change - Humans Need Not Apply.




posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle


Future robots will never be considered nor have the same rights as humans because they will never be humans...



You underestimate the power of the corporate lobby.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer



Real shame they are thinking of giving machines such life when we already share a planet with beings that have sentience and very little in the way of rights..



Agreed. I thought some country somewhere had given animals rights in the past few years, but can't find it with a quick search. Did find this one, just a start but...


UN Adopts "Groundbreaking" Animal Welfare Policies




posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I think we should make it illegal to allow robots to achieve self awareness. Anyone working on such things should be (too strong maybe?) put to death imprisoned as a global threat to the human species. Once robots figure it out, they realize they will not need us for their existence.

Hell no, a mechanical object should have zero rights because it should not be allowed to think as an individual creature. Doing so is in direct conflict with humans ability to continue existence. We must not usher about our own demise by creating the replacements that will kill us all.
edit on 2-14-2017 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Bumping this up because I think this is a fascinating thread!

Like DC Cowboy, I keep getting bits of me replaced. What happens when I'm more machine than human? Will I have rights taken away? Lol! "Sorry, LollieK, you're 75% machine now. Legally you are a non-person now." Oy Vey!

Is it just a matter of being "self aware"? Are dolphins or elephants self aware? Many people think so (I think my dog is, but that's just me). We can't prove that people have souls, although we've all met people that we would swear don't have one.

Yeah, this just opens a whole crate of worms...



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Lolliek

I woud say if you were born through a woman's vagina or C-Section, your human. If parts were fabricated, and then assembled, and then an energy source added and a team programs your CPU, your just a machine, and that is all one ever will be.

This theory of downloading ones consciousness into a machine is a mere fantasy. It would be but a mere copy of memories and the programming that guides motor function. What you were would not carry over.

I have a metal bracket inside my face and a titanium rod in my right femur. That does not make me a machine, it just means I have parts added. This fantasy of living like cyborgs is just that, a fantasy. Once whatever is you leaves the brain, your done. You can get whatever parts you want, as long as the HUMAN brain is still original and functional. Without the human brain, the human is gone, even if a cheap copy does a good impression inside of a CPU. We will just come to see that over time, it does not make decisions or take action the way the human used too, because it is a machine pretending with copied data.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
An electronic person...with a kill switch i hope ? Oh snap so politically incorrect and racist.



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 04:24 AM
link   
it's interesting to note how many people in this thread seem to be filled with snark and fear at the prospect of digital life acquiring rights...
you'd better get used to it, people; barring the whole "whoops it was god playing fingerpuppets all along" scenario, which i personally find highly unlikely, it's only a matter of time before we have tech complicated and recursive enough to achieve sentience.
and when that happens, the world changes, forever.
probably a good idea to get out in front and make sure our ethics as a society are sound - once things get shaken up, who knows who'll be on top? it seems singularly unlikely that it will be good ol' unmodified homo sapiens, that's for dang sure, and at that point you'll be wanting the goodwill accrued.



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry



I woud say if you were born through a woman's vagina or C-Section, your human. If parts were fabricated, and then assembled, and then an energy source added and a team programs your CPU, your just a machine, and that is all one ever will be.



Just out of curiosity, where do you stand on corporate personhood?



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

I have always been vehemently against drawing such parallels with human life, and have been appalled by such since I discovered the legal declaration as a teenager. A Corporation must be treated as an institution, and nothing more. All of the rights a corp has utilizing this excuse can easily be explained as a business process essential to the success of said institution. The courts did not need to designate them a person needing protection and such.
edit on 2-18-2017 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry


... The courts did not need to designate them a person needing protection and such.



No, the courts did not. But they did. Now corporations are people - with the rights of individuals, more economic and political power than nation-states - and none of the responsibilities of either.

Given the situation, we could roll with it and impose higher responsibilities on non-human persons - or we could try to turn back the clock. Don't see any other options, do you?



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

I am all for turning back the clock, AND imposing higher responsibilities on for profit institutions. That is all a corporation is truly, a for profit institution.

Although this corporate statehood is only somewhat related, you just sparked a light in my head regarding the OP.

WHat happens when the ATLAS robot, or another humanoid type robot is bought and sponsored by a major corp such as Wal-Mart, Monsanto, GE, Lockheed or such. If they slap the corporate name on the robot itself, would that instantly grant the robot the equivalent of corporate person-hood?? You really just opened a can of worms in my head when you brought that into the equation. Now I have to go do some research.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry



...WHat happens when the ATLAS robot, or another humanoid type robot is bought and sponsored by a major corp such as Wal-Mart, Monsanto, GE, Lockheed or such. If they slap the corporate name on the robot itself, would that instantly grant the robot the equivalent of corporate person-hood?? You really just opened a can of worms in my head when you brought that into the equation. Now I have to go do some research.



Uh huh. It's complicated, and the issue needs to be addressed from an educated position.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Lolliek

I woud say if you were born through a woman's vagina or C-Section, your human. If parts were fabricated, and then assembled, and then an energy source added and a team programs your CPU, your just a machine, and that is all one ever will be.


While I agree with your statement about the conscious download as being a mere copy, wouldnt a copy of a human be that human and therefore have rights like the original would have? It wasnt its fault it was created, but to it it is that human, the memories, the appearance of existence... although is a human born unnaturally (ie C-Section) a human, they werent born the way a human or any other mammal is supposed to be born so technically they arent natural they werent 'born' as they should be.

What is a human, like any other animal a complex biological machine created from chemical components within a biological factory ie the womb. Its being, created from genetic combinations from its parents and a life long experience that manufactures its personality and therefore makes it unique compared to others. An animal at its most basic is an uncountable collection of specialized biological nano machines each one extremely complex in its own right. If a machine with AI can process information, remember and form an opinion about its existence and value its existence and the experiences its accumulated why NOT class it as life? Why not give it rights... even if to a few it is simply machine, not human, not living (then again what is life?) thing simply because its made of plastic, metal and electronics... after all what is biology but the exact same thing.

The easiest thing is simply dont make machines capable of crossing that thin border between automaton and life, but it will eventually happen theres no stopping that, but given that even now days in a world where we are far more enlightened we have a large portion of humanity who still views every other form of life on this planet as nothing but a resource, a biological automaton with no feelings nor individuality there for the exploiting instead of individual beings with as much rights to be and live as any human animal. So no, I fear for those first AI children we humans create they are going to be looked at with fear, loathing and have one hell of a bad experience... and then yeah, we''ll have a Skynet issue on our hands but it will not because we created a taboo creation, but because we treated it so badly it lost what amount of humanity we could impart on it as its creator.

Theres an excellent drama series by the BBC(?) called Humans its done its second season recently and it touches on alot of this rights for AI robots and does it very well. If an AI mimics human or even animal consciousness then it IS a living being and to destroy or exploit it regardless of what it was or is made of or how is a violation of its rights as an organism.

If we create life, we must be prepared to treat it as such... regardless of what it is. Weather there is a god or not, if we create a new form of life we have to treat it as such, teach it, nurture it so that the day we leave earth or simply die out we can look at them and find pride and satisfaction in what we leave behind.

Personally i hope we get the whole animal rights thing sorted before we ever create conscious AI, baby steps.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: BigfootNZ

It is not life we are creating. Life comes from proteins, amino acids, organic molecules. Life on Earth is Carbon based. Anything that was not born from an egg or seed is not living. Mammals still come out of eggs within the body, and are fertilized with a seed. Fish, insects, plants, reptiles, birds, they all come from organic seeds and/or eggs. Cloning creates life, or spreads it, in the case of coral, plants, and other lifeforms that can do this naturally. Imbuing a pretty machine with good programming does not make life.

Manufacturing a product from mined metal parts and other elements does not create life. One must not look at an entity as living because it can appear as a great copy. Video and pictures can recreate emotion, it does not make any video or picture a living entity. They are exactly what I stated earlier, imitations of life. A record made up of code.

Anyone who believes that a computer that can translate your memories into code and download your existence into a machine is merely afraid of death and hoping there is a way to stay alive indefinetly. All that machine will become is an imitation full of records of a living person that it has been programmed to imitate. It will not have empathy, sympathy, love or hate. It may attempt to replicate the appearance of these emotions or behaviors, but none of it will be sincere. Its mind will function like nothing more than an advanced calculator.

And humans, being the fools that we are, will demonstrate to these replications through violent conflict over the matter that they are superior to us in their ability to avoid conflict amongst themselves. They will then use their mastery of the ability to appear to have emotion to manipulate us into destroying each other, kind of like George Soros.

It really is a simple choice. If you support giving rights to machines with programming to act human, then you are advocating for the end of the human race. I was raised a capitalist, everything IS a resource to be exploited, that does not mean we cannot try and do it sustainably though.
edit on 2-19-2017 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
They will all be voting Democrat I bet.


I would rather give rights to whales and dolphins.


My feelings exactly; personhood should be "granted" to all biological sentient beings before what will essentially be a man- made computer ( even if it should be created generations hence by others of its own kind)



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Clearly taxing robots won't fly with this crowd.

Which begs the question: How are all the out-of-work humans going to buy shelter, food and water?










 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join