Rights for robots in UK

[jman507]

Just a few thoughts from a computer programmer…

Programming a Human-like AI would be a daunting task - granted, it might be easier to make Robots that are self-replicating (nano-technology) and are able to program themselves. I recall reading a report on nanotechnology where nano-sized gold “stamps” were able to connect themselves by a gold strand. Imagine that immitating brain cells. Another possibility would be to connect robots with a broad Human-to-computer Internet. (Perhaps “Internet 3.0” – 2.0 is already in the works in colleges and such, which is better infrastructure).

In non-techie terms, imagine wearing some sort of headband with a nano-computer processor in it. Via your thoughts (it’s been proven that this can happen using ‘non-invasive’ techniques), you can connect to a global Internet. In fact, you could even “connect” to objects in your house that have the chip, or a mesh of chips. So, you could “feel” your couch get a rip in it and the couch might “order itself” to be repaired. Or, getting into the shower, you can control the heat of the water by just thinking about it. Of course, you could also “feel” other people pains and joys - which is kind of a scary thought in of itself. The “Thought Stalker” anyone? Sounds like a b-movie. Even corporations might have their employees work while they’re sleeping by using their brain-power, perhaps even with machines at the workplace. Teens could play games just using thoughts (while at school, while sleeping - essentially 24 hours a day). It would translate into objects - not just robots - by giving them some sense of ‘feelings’ (more like reactive). With an adaptive AI, they could eventually “learn it” and become self-independant.

In the case of robots, you could have a CEO of some construction company with an army of robots. One group would mine minerals, load robotically controlled trucks that take it to the factories, where other robots process the materials into goods. Then, the builder robots take the goods, and construct whatever building the CEO wants.

I would guess this…

Nanotech/Quantum PCs - 20-30 years off (closer to 30) before it becomes commercially/economically viable.

Human-to-Human network - 35-40 years off.

Human-to-object (inatimate and robot) network - 45-50 years off. At this point, technology (research, engineering) and commercialization will really take off. You might see great strides in space travel, too with all of the scientists communication instantenously for hours on end.

Robots getting to the point of competent self-replication and self-adapting-AI - 60-75 years off.

We could still be around at this point if there’s millions of nano-bots floating around inside of our bodies repairing cells, organs, and effectively making us live longer - perhaps 200-300 years. These little bots would even need an AI to control how to repair things, how to self replicate (if needed), how to remove waste (including broken nanobots). I think that, within 100 years, people will be completely connected to machines all in the name of progress and technology. Those without it could become something like 2nd class citizens - perhaps not being able to buy/sell anything as money would probably be digital by then - meaning you need to be connected.

…when Life imitates Art (Fiction)…

Goodness, you’ll have to watch out about that Internet 3.0, you thought organic viruses where bad. And we are worried about the H5N1 influenza A virus!

 

[johnnycatholic]

I understand your definition, but it seems it is akin to speciesism, something that Singer condemns.

Animals that aren’t human don’t deserve the same rights as humans because they aren’t capable of undertaking the same responsibilities. The flip side of rights is responsibilities. You cannot separate the two or you have anarchy or slavery.
When cats and cows will take care of me in my old age or invent a cure for cancer, i will stop eating them.
Also, humans that are incapable of doing their humanly “responsibilities”, like the mentally handicapped or insane, still maintain their dignity and stay off my dinner plate. Part of my human responsibility is to take care of those humans who can’t care for themselves. Since i did not give them their human dignity, i cannot take it away simply because they have a disorder.
I would be very interested to hear why Dr. Peter Singer believes all animals are equal. He’s wrong, but since he has a doctorate, i’m sure he’ll use a lot of words explaining his wrongness.

 

[johnnycatholic]

I understand your definition, but it seems it is akin to speciesism, something that Singer condemns.

Animals that aren’t human don’t deserve the same rights as humans because they aren’t capable of undertaking the same responsibilities. The flip side of rights is responsibilities. You cannot separate the two or you have anarchy or slavery.
When cats and cows will take care of me in my old age or invent a cure for cancer, i will stop eating them.
Also, humans that are incapable of doing their humanly “responsibilities”, like the mentally handicapped or insane, still maintain their dignity and stay off my dinner plate. Part of my human responsibility is to take care of those humans who can’t care for themselves. Since i did not give them their human dignity, i cannot take it away simply because they have a disorder.
I would be very interested to hear why Dr. Peter Singer believes all animals are equal. He’s wrong, but since he has a doctorate, i’m sure he’ll use a lot of words explaining his wrongness.

 

[ribozyme]

Just a few thoughts from a computer programmer…

Programming a Human-like AI would be a daunting task - granted, it might be easier to make Robots that are self-replicating (nano-technology) and are able to program themselves. I recall reading a report on nanotechnology where nano-sized gold “stamps” were able to connect themselves by a gold strand. Imagine that immitating brain cells. Another possibility would be to connect robots with a broad Human-to-computer Internet. (Perhaps “Internet 3.0” – 2.0 is already in the works in colleges and such, which is better infrastructure).

In non-techie terms, imagine wearing some sort of headband with a nano-computer processor in it. Via your thoughts (it’s been proven that this can happen using ‘non-invasive’ techniques), you can connect to a global Internet. In fact, you could even “connect” to objects in your house that have the chip, or a mesh of chips. So, you could “feel” your couch get a rip in it and the couch might “order itself” to be repaired. Or, getting into the shower, you can control the heat of the water by just thinking about it. Of course, you could also “feel” other people pains and joys - which is kind of a scary thought in of itself. The “Thought Stalker” anyone? Sounds like a b-movie. Even corporations might have their employees work while they’re sleeping by using their brain-power, perhaps even with machines at the workplace. Teens could play games just using thoughts (while at school, while sleeping - essentially 24 hours a day). It would translate into objects - not just robots - by giving them some sense of ‘feelings’ (more like reactive). With an adaptive AI, they could eventually “learn it” and become self-independant.

In the case of robots, you could have a CEO of some construction company with an army of robots. One group would mine minerals, load robotically controlled trucks that take it to the factories, where other robots process the materials into goods. Then, the builder robots take the goods, and construct whatever building the CEO wants.

I would guess this…

Nanotech/Quantum PCs - 20-30 years off (closer to 30) before it becomes commercially/economically viable.

Human-to-Human network - 35-40 years off.

Human-to-object (inatimate and robot) network - 45-50 years off. At this point, technology (research, engineering) and commercialization will really take off. You might see great strides in space travel, too with all of the scientists communication instantenously for hours on end.

Robots getting to the point of competent self-replication and self-adapting-AI - 60-75 years off.

We could still be around at this point if there’s millions of nano-bots floating around inside of our bodies repairing cells, organs, and effectively making us live longer - perhaps 200-300 years. These little bots would even need an AI to control how to repair things, how to self replicate (if needed), how to remove waste (including broken nanobots). I think that, within 100 years, people will be completely connected to machines all in the name of progress and technology. Those without it could become something like 2nd class citizens - perhaps not being able to buy/sell anything as money would probably be digital by then - meaning you need to be connected.

…when Life imitates Art (Fiction)…

Sounds like you read some material from Ray Kurzweil; sorry to revive this topic though and it’s probably moved to the wrong forum. I am effervencent about the prospect of nanobots though. Kurzweil says its billions of nanobots though.

This paper might be germane to the topic: kurzweilai.net/articles/art0683.html?printable=1

I wonder if we should grant rights to a machine that has passed the Turing test though. Clearly that machine wouldn’t have a soul if one believes that souls are endowed at the union of egg and sperm.

 

[vz71]

I wonder if we should grant rights to a machine that has passed the Turing test though. Clearly that machine wouldn’t have a soul if one believes that souls are endowed at the union of egg and sperm.

The Turing test only shows that the machine is programmed with the right answers. It could hardly be considered evidence of a soul.