"Robots will gain equal rights in human society in about 50 years" predicts a new British report published recently, which was compiled under the auspices of the Office of the Chief Scientist in the United Kingdom, conducted by the management consulting company Outsights and the research organization Ipsos Mori, and funded by the British government
While the war against discrimination due to race, sex, class and sexual identity has not yet been decided on the legal-social battlefield, and many of the global movements for the fight for the basic rights that are denied to humans are knocking on the doors of the courts in order to preserve them, in the current century an ever more optimistic situation is expected, and even for robots with Silicon and metal brains will be given rights.
"Robots will gain equal rights in human society in about 50 years" predicts a new British report published recently, which was compiled under the auspices of the Office of the Chief Scientist in the United Kingdom, conducted by the management consulting company Outsights and the research organization Ipsos Mori, and funded by the British government .
"Should robots be given rights"? It is not a trivial question. It was asked in order to be and remain "divided", in order to excite and remain humble, in order to come out into the light and remain shy and as such, it forces the informalists among us to pay attention to it, and if not now, then when?
At the beginning of my writing, I admit that I tried to "rape" my desire to grant rights to robots. Perhaps it stemmed from an inner and unrealized anger that there is no reason sufficient to make the human race superior, perhaps it stemmed from my inexhaustible love for animals, creatures that cannot express pain when they are hurt, and accepting them for robots, and perhaps it simply stemmed from my desire to have a different opinion from my friends , who when they heard the question responded with disdain and ignorance.
After careful reading of materials dealing with the rapid development of artificial intelligence that will be found in every robotic "brain" I realized that there is not one solid factual study that emphatically states that robots (currently) really think for themselves and draw conclusions. Therefore, I tried, in my stubborn way, to find another way that would provide a sufficiently justified reason, to silence the echoes of mockery from the circle around me, and therefore I turned to emotion. I assumed, thanks to the fascinating writing of Tom Regan, the author of the article "The Argument for Animal Rights" and Jeremy Bentham, one of the founders of the theory of utilitarianism, that if I find that robots have, even if a small potential to feel, the same "intrinsic value", then it comes They have rights that will eradicate suffering and preserve happiness.
This attempt was also unsuccessful, and before I raised my hands and surrendered to the voice of reason, I realized a very simple thing. If I did not find the answer through the connection between artificial intelligence and the granting of rights to robots, I will surely find a solution through our intelligence.
The voice of intelligence in me simply said that robots should be given rights, not from their point of view, but from our point of view, as humans. Because it will be appropriate for us.
In my opinion, it is appropriate to sanctify the fruit of our development. It is appropriate in my view not to deny qualities and tendencies to attribute feelings, which are understood in our women. In my opinion, it is appropriate to recognize our very existence as human beings. It is appropriate in my eyes to believe in something that we have brought into our lives. In my opinion, it is worthy of gratitude, even for an object that we had for help. In my view, it is appropriate to educate the future generation to grant rights to the alienated and the foreigner, even now, when there is still a drop of human nature. It's just appropriate in my opinion.
From the moment I came to these insights, I no longer felt the need to rape my desire to grant rights to robots. Although I do not agree that robots deserve all the rights, just as humans have, because just as animals and plants have rights that are different from us, there should be no different reason for robots, but my opinion is that they do deserve rights such as respect and freedom.
Aka, from the point of view of the technological forecasts unanimously show that the robots will be so smart and intelligent, even more than humans, we will no longer be at the stage where we discuss whether it is appropriate or not, or what rights and what their scope is, because they will simply demand them themselves and adopt them without having to go through First through the gates of the law.
In addition, I find it appropriate to comment that the research question is essentially a question dependent on cultural legitimacy. I want to say that, just as at the time it was not appropriate for lay people to write about philosophy, and it was not appropriate to believe in anything other than God, and it was not appropriate to grant rights to women and blacks, today it is not appropriate among human society to grant rights to robots. There is no doubt that, just as the cell phone, Facebook and personal computer industry has entered society's consciousness, so the question of giving rights to robots will soon become a trivial question.
More on the subject on the science website
28 תגובות
Peace,
I would be happy to publish with you my article regarding the rights of robots with artificial intelligence, as part of my master's degree in law and technology (with a bachelor's degree in computer science).
As you correctly understood, no one is talking about giving rights to your vacuum cleaner or your refrigerator, it is about rights that will be given to robots and computers in 30 years that will really have real intelligence, even higher than yours and mine, only now the power of computers is starting to approach the power that is really needed for this.
In the 80s people threw a lot of speculations and guesses into the air that were not based on reality, in the 80s the issue was just beginning to develop and few understood what was really needed and what resources were necessary to realize it, today the issue is much more mature, and those involved in the field are much more supervised and understand what is really needed in order to to create real intelligence in the computer.
What rights will you tell me?
For my Roomba vacuum cleaner?
To my computer?
to the fridge?
to Yes's converter?
to my receiver?
If the refrigerator takes the form of a human but has no intelligence, then give it rights?
What the hell are you talking about? We've been talking about artificial intelligence since the 80s and voice recognition we haven't yet been able to perfect to the level of recognizing people with a different accent, so intelligence and rights?
You have completely exaggerated
Does anyone really think that robots whose level of intelligence will be billions of times higher than that of humans will care at all if we are "ready" to grant them rights or not? It's like asking if we are interested today if some cow grazing in the field is willing to grant us rights... If we are lucky they will decide to keep some of us in nature reserves....
First of all, there is a long-standing debate... and deep... whether or not we ourselves have self-awareness and free choice... and Socrates has already demonstrated beautifully that... no...
So again this leaves us with the question of what is the person allowed..
And perhaps the question that should be asked is "will the robots (or should it be the computers) give us rights?"
And my opinion.. we are moving towards a symbiosis between us and the computers.. and maybe between us the people.. and the whole question of rights.. is going to disappear due to the very fact that a person always gives rights to himself
Will they give the robots the right to natural reproduction in the territories we returned since the six days?
I remember that in the XNUMXs and XNUMXs they said that by the year XNUMX robots would be doing everything, from simple housework to operating operating rooms.
Predictions do not always come true.
In any case, what is beautiful about this article is the number of comments it brought...
In this context, it seems to me most appropriate to quote the words of Marvin, the paranoid android from "The Hitchhiker's Guide", which has already been noted to be about 5 billion times more intelligent than simple creatures (such as swamp mattresses for example). After walking in a circle around his stuck leg for a million and a half years, he suddenly met a swamp mattress named Zem who started trying to befriend him. The robot's first words after a million and a half years were:
"Blax."
And in this short and catchy sentence he also sums up my opinion on the article here.
It seems quite clear to me that any creature that reaches a level of self-awareness is morally entitled to the protection of its right to exist, in my opinion it could be that when certain systems become complex enough they simply become self-aware, if there is any truth in this then it can be a good measure of knowing whether the system before me is worthy of moral rights , that is, self-awareness does not have to be an artificial function that is written as an imitation of human awareness, but it should arise from itself, that is, when a certain robot grows beyond its basic programming in an independent way and says "I exist" without anyone programming it to say this, then this might be a good enough proof of its existence of real consciousness, when I think about it the only man-made thing that seems to me complex enough to someday reach such a level, is the Internet
I don't know about you, it's clear as day to me, in any case the real question that needs to be asked is whether robots whose level of intelligence will be billions of times higher than that of a human, will agree to grant us rights, or even live.... The direction is very clear to anyone with eyes in their head -
------------------
1. Interview with the Israeli representative in the "Computerized Brain" project -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz5IUaRr8No
------------------
2. A fascinating lecture (!!!) by the head of the project, I recommend clicking on the button below the video window and zooming to full screen so as not to miss important details in the presentation -
http://ditwww.epfl.ch/cgi-perl/EPFLTV/home.pl/?page=video&lang=2&id=365&plugin=9&plugin=2&plugin=3&checkplugin=1
------------------
3. Another lecture -
http://neuroinformatics2008.org/congress-movies/Henry%20Markram.flv/view
------------------
4. A topic strongly related to the field, the singularity is approaching -
http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/ViewEntry.asp?EntryId=1065939
------------------
5. Images from the brain -
http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/ViewEntry.asp?EntryId=1399918
------------------
6. Fascinating article about the computer brain simulation project -
Part a'
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/out_of_the_blue/?page=2
Part II'
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/out_of_the_blue/P2
------------------
7. A fascinating PDF document on the subject (in Hebrew) click the right button, and "Save as..." –
http://www.odyssey.org.il/pdf/עידן%20שגב-מסע%20מודרני%20אל%20נבכי%20המוח.pdf
------------------
8. "The project for cracking the secrets of the brain" -
http://www.themedical.co.il/Article.aspx?medicalField=0&category=0&itemID=1868
------------------
Eddie:
You have no real argument with Raanan's position because you do not present any alternative.
Yes, equal rights to piles of trash? Women have not had equal rights in this world for thousands of years, shouldn't a robot have them?
It doesn't seem to me that this whole fantasy has any validity in the third world which is a huge part of the world's population.
It seems that such things are written to justify the salary of some official more than to provide objective content.
Hello Eddie,
What makes you think the article is translated?
Mickey,
You probably missed my clarification in response 2. The article is translated, not Ms. Efrat Oren was the target of what I said.
As a matter of fact, you are right about the derogatory names - I should have refined my words more. Indeed, the words of the sages are easy to hear, and I was wrong when I was carried away by the fierceness of the expression.
However, I do not accept that I have come out against freedom of speech. Condemning things is not condemning freedom of speech per se. Mind you, the identification between these two things is a kind of gagging attempt.
By the way, in the context of your words, it seems to me that you are also getting carried away with the derogatory expressions... and the 'dismissal in Momo disqualifies' - isn't that what you yourself say...
I'm sorry to tell you, but you went too far and went low with your expressions, didn't you?
Your double conclusion 'this necessarily means that she is not a fool or an idiot, but you' - strange. Many bizarre things are published in the newspapers, including in 'Hidan'. This is the price of freedom of speech. This article is one of the more bizarre ones, and criticizing it is not a sign of stupidity - quite the opposite.
As for publishing articles - this is neither a sign nor a caveat to wisdom. By the way, it has already been proposed in the past to publish a certain article of several chapters, my own (actually the proposer was Michael Rothschild, who actually strongly disagreed with me). There was no response from the system, and the material was not even disclosed. Too bad.
Michael,
From a material point of view, 'a fraction', this sentence takes up about half of Ra'anan's response...and it reflects a fundamental worldview with which I have an argument, and should have an argument with it. The arrest was not in vain, even if I (of course) agree with the rest of Raanan's words and I have no doubt about his personal morality.
I mainly referred to the comments
So what did you refer to?
Equal rights for machines?….
come on…
Be serious!
This does not justify an article and certainly not a reference. Article and reference.
Eddie,
Your response was great, with a fine critical flavor until, in the last paragraph, you allowed yourself to quote the reporter's words and add irrelevant insults. So I appreciated your high words - they went down to the bottom line. I don't appreciate people who go low, and you went low.
You speak in high language as if the world we live in should only work according to your formalistic, narrow-minded belief.
What a pity that in our small country there are people like you, who come out against giving rights to robots, while in their cross words, rights are denied to humans - such as freedom of speech. Stop criticizing the actions of entrepreneurs who express their opinion freely because don't forget that everyone who rejects - in his own right rejects.
I am sorry to tell you that if Ms. Efrat Oren's article was uploaded to Liden, as a respectable website, this necessarily means that she is not a fool or an idiot, but you.
And if you are so "smart" - where are your articles?
Mickey
Eddie:
You get caught up in the first sentence of Ra'anan's words and ignore everything else.
The sequel puts things in a context that makes sense of all your words.
fresh,
I don't understand you.
If a person is nothing more than a robot - then in principle, his life has no more sacred value than the 'life' of a computer or the 'life' of any physical system, more or less complex.
If a person is nothing more than a robot - he has no desire or existential interest preferred over that of any physical machine, more complex or less complex.
If a person is nothing more than a robot - in principle, he does not bear moral rights and duties any more than any physical machine, that is - he bears zero level duties and rights.
Thus, if man undergoes a complete reduction to physical events and processes (and this is the meaning of "I generally think that humans are nothing more than biological robots") - there is no basis for any moral duty or right - including life - neither on his part nor towards him. Everything that is physically possible - neither allowed nor forbidden, in principle. 'Morality' is emptied of its content, because there is no morality in 'nature'.
Therefore, according to your method, if taken seriously, one reaches absurdities. Among other things - it is not forbidden to end a person's life ('murder')...
Think about this before you jump to conclusions about the murder ('for whatever reason') there is supposedly in disconnecting a robot from the electricity and the need to preserve human rights...
I of course disagree with your view, which to me is logically absurd and anti-moral (actually. I don't believe you mean to be morally apathetic). One of my starting points is described in response 1.
I generally think that humans are nothing more than biological robots, therefore if a robot or software reaches the level of human intelligence then it surely has rights equal to those of any human being, and being disconnected from the electricity is murder for all intents and purposes. The problem is that today there is difficulty in many countries in the world to maintain human rights, places like Africa, the Muslim world, China, Russia, etc. But the day when our children won't have to go to the army because the robots will be there in their place is still far away, and maybe it's a good thing.
Roy:
That is not accurate.
Already today we have robots that we are unable to predict exactly what they will do.
Besides - what people say about God is even less serious than what they say about intelligent robots.
It won't be, and there's no reason for it to be. This is exactly why we and God will be on the same level. And since he knows what we will do, or at least that's what they say, we will be able to predict exactly how a robot will behave, no matter how much he thinks he has free will.
The day robots have AI and define themselves then they will definitely be entitled to rights. Consciousness is self-determination and not by someone else.
Until then it is not a "thinking" creature these are machines.
Eddie:
I also think this is a baseless prediction.
It's not a religion and it's not New Age because it has no effect, but it's clear that today we have no real idea of how consciousness and intelligence are formed.
The interesting thing is that this over-optimism has been a line in our places for many years and I had this type of debate already 20 years ago and more.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/autonomous-military-robotics-ethics-code-2302092/#comment-181662
It's about time you all read Asimov, he has an excellent story about Giscard, the robot who passed a law saying that people who are mostly robotic prostheses are human, so he was implanted with a human heart and he died as a human
Regarding my previous response, I would like to make it clear that I used different pronouns not towards the translator.
"After careful reading of materials dealing with the ever-evolving development of artificial intelligence that will be found in every robotic "brain", I realized that there is not one solid factual study that emphatically states that robots (currently) really do think for themselves and draw conclusions."
Robots do not 'think' - they are automatons that obey orders. The commands are given, if not directly by humans, - then indirectly - by human action programs. These programs' capabilities are limited to a certain computational power and to operation by certain algorithms - which are also the result of the unique intelligence and creativity of the person who conceived and created the programs These capabilities are final - the programs cannot go out of their own box.
And not only about intelligence in the essential sense there is nothing to talk about - the other mental qualities do not exist in the robot either. He has no 'consciousness', he is unable to feel an 'emotion' and is unable to create an 'emotion'. even if he declares to you that 'he'
Exists here and now - after all, this is a statement of the deed of a monkey in Alma. Even if he 'swears' to you that he 'understands' you and 'feels' friendship towards you - don't believe him - you are dealing with electronic eye contact. Even if he 'smiles' at you - don't be fooled - there is no fundamental difference between him and any toy doll.
And all the loud talk about 'neural computing' won't help here either (I'm already guessing the reaction of certain computer people...). Such bees are only good for raising funds for academic centers, whose achievements (without underestimating them in themselves) are nice, but limited and far from showing the possibility of a complete or principled reduction of the mental faculties to the physical level.
All in all, the article reflects a kind of new idolatry, in a New Age format filled with empty slogans and just pathetic idle chatter:
"In my opinion, it is appropriate to sanctify the fruit of our development. It is appropriate in my view not to deny qualities and tendencies to attribute feelings, which are understood in our women. In my opinion, it is appropriate to recognize our very existence as human beings. It is appropriate in my eyes to believe in something that we have brought into our lives. In my opinion, it is worthy of gratitude, even for an object that we had for help. In my view, it is appropriate to educate the future generation to grant rights to the alienated and the foreigner, even now, when there is still a drop of human nature. It's just appropriate in my eyes."
And one more thing of wisdom she has for Kasila:
"Da Aka, from the point of view of the technological forecasts unanimously show that the robots will be so smart and intelligent, even more than humans, we will no longer be at a stage where we discuss whether it is appropriate or not, or what rights and what their scope is, because they will simply demand them themselves and adopt them without having to to go through the gates of the law first."
...According to the idiot's method, I can already see how human rights become secondary to the rights of the new masters of the earth, the robot sons of God. We will not be in the future but slaves to the deeds of our own hands, to the idols 'fruit of our development' that were 'sanctified' by most of the folly of those with inferior servile morals that even Nietzsche never dreamed of.