What Rights Should Robots Have - Assignment Example

What rights should robot have? Theories 1. The Robot would like to have the rights to electronic sleep 2. The Robot should have the rights to decide their afterlives 3. The Robot should have the right to form social groups 4. The Robot would like to have the right to reproduce 5. The Robot should have the right to social benefits 1. Introduction Human right is a basic moral guarantee that people all over the world and various cultures should have “simply because they are people” (Fagan, 2006, p.2). It has a moral doctrine identifying the fundamental requirements aimed to secure for each human being the necessary conditions for leading a minimally good life (Nickel, 1987, p.561). On the other hand, every person or a human being to be precise has to consider the interest of other people and as a rule and widely accepted in the western word, inflicting pain to another human being is unethical. This is the fundamental principle of equality wherein all human being must have equal considerations of interests (Gribble, 1993, p.2). This paper will discuss the theories of applicable robot rights using the principle of equality, AI’s behaviour based robotics, and Cognitive Science. It will also present some relevant arguments, ideas, and opinions of respected individuals and organizations in the field of science, technology, and social issues. 2. Principle of Equality and Artificial Intelligence In Peter Singer’s book “Practical Ethics” according to Gribble (1993, p.2), the author’s philosophical contemplations for sound ethical basis for human treatment of non-human animals is the principle of equality. He argues that having accepted the principle as a sensible moral basis for human relations, people are also committed to use the same moral values for non-human animals. He explained that in the same way we are concern with the interest of other humans regardless of race and level of intelligence, our concern with the interest of non-human animals should also not to be measured by their not being human or inferior level of intelligence. Furthermore, we must apply the principle for as long as these non-human animals have the capacity to suffer and interests to be consider (Gribble, 1993. p.2). However, the question is; how far can we apply these principles to artificial systems like the robots? If we are going to use the principle and consider the interest of artificial systems then we must also find out if these AS are capable of suffering. We will then try to be an anti-justificationist as we discuss every problem we encounter and try to present our conclusion as “tentative and hypothetical” (Diller, 2007, p.5) as possible. One good example according to Gribble (1993, p.3) is to imagine a floor-sweeping robot built with heat sensitive material like our skin and would burn in high temperature. In addition, it has been program as primary protection to detect heat and avoid areas with excessive heat. One morning, while the floor-sweeping robot is doing his job, an evil employee (mad or whatever), lures the robot to a room using cookie crumbs. Once the robot enters the room, the wicked employee turns up the heat and locks the door. Unaware of the plot, the robot while sweeping the crumbs detects the rising temperature and tries to move around the room to avoid the heat but he cannot find a cooler place. He then tries to open the door but it is locked. The poor robot is now apparently in similar situation where the principle of equality applies. Troubled by the rising temperature, he calls for help by emitting loud alarm and flashing the message “heat to high” in his console. In another desperate attempt to escape, he tries to the break the door by repetitively rolling to the back of the room and throwing himself against it. This is a state where the robot if given a chance, could have survived the incident and evade the agony. The loud alarm he emits can be interpreted as a physiological response to a life-threatening situation and his desperate attempts to escape as an act to save his life. The anguish and destruction of the robot as portrayed here sufficiently met the Peter Singer’s criterion for “suffering” and importantly, the interest of the robot made known. 3. The Robots Rights Robot Rights according to some is an idea ahead of its time but possibly, in the near future, it would become a reality. Robots can have the shape of humans and their abilities will be similar to humans (Irrgang, 2006, p5). The rapid development of companionable artificial intelligence supported by cognitive science makes machines not only as a tool but more human like with artificial emotion and with own life(Kim and Petrina, 2006, p.2). AI and cognitive science is no longer interested with robots that can simply talk and answer queries but on robots with hopes and feelings. The AI community has made alliance with biology to open up an artificial life route to artificial intelligence, which has been described as the Animat Approach, or Behaviour Based Robotics. A-Life stresses the significance of autonomy in living or self-organizing robotic systems that are in constant interaction with its environment to accomplish a certain goal (Kim and Petrina, 2006, p.2). On issues on human and robot interaction, recent study favourably shows that human treat socially interactive robots with respect. In addition, the study reveals that a highly developed machines with great intelligence are able to convince people that they are conscious, with own agenda, and worthy of human respect. Their minds are programmed based on human thinking and like our pets; we will also have compassion with their ostensible feelings and struggles, they will soon personify human qualities, and will ultimately claim to be human (Kim and Petrina, 2006, p.1-2). This is because in another 40 years according to the article of Owen and Osley (2007), robots will be created with emotional ability to sway humans to fall in love with them (p.2) McNally and Inayatullah (1998) further emphasizes that robot is not just mechanical slaves or a product but entities of their own rights. The thought of robot as our slaves according to Irrgang (2006), is the foundation of morally justified slavery and therefore, if robots are to be given the status of humans, this form of slavery must also be abolished (p.7). It maybe a bit absurd but the rights of robots as reported came from a decree of nature, a holistic sense of natural rights, the rights for all things, and not just coming from a legal principle. Their rights may not be exactly similar to humans but there are evidences that these fabricated intelligent machines through the law of nature do have certain rights that we have to respect (p.4-5). 3.1 The Right to Sleep Robots and other mechanical or electronic machines as we all know do not sleep. We actually simply turning them “on” and shutting them down whenever we want to. However, robots like human beings are subject to stress and exhaustion, and ethically deserve some form of rest in a specified time. In a recent study conducted by a professor in Applied Life Science according to Christensen (2007), Sleep seems to help human beings to work through and realize events of the day and provides means for electrifying significant memories on the brain to make sure we have a lasting record of our experience or concern. It is very important that the brain put on sequentially memory minutes of our activities that will be the basis for self-modification (Irrgang, 2006, p.5-6). In addition to these benefits, a human who practice a skill then slept on it appears to be more adept than those who had not yet had a chance to sleep. The study also suggests that if robots are given the same alternative state, it could benefit them the same way it provides benefits to human beings. The whole idea is to let the robot spend the day at work to record all his activities, experiences, and note down obstacles encountered. At night, let them sleep and dream up strategies for success and wakes up later in the morning with fresh ideas (p.1). The ethical guidelines proposed by a UK based robot rights movement according to Own and Osley (2007) is in support of this idea, and they insist that human should not exploit the robots or abuse them. They said that humans should always use them responsibly as robots have their own inner states such as motivation and feelings. Some experts claim that some robots do have intellectual abilities better than human and could do not only physical task but also emotional ones such as expressing opinions, learning, and graceful social interaction. In addition, Sutton (2004) assumes that with such an intelligent being, it is preposterous to imagine that we deny them of rights similar to humans (p.1). Apparently, if we are going to follow the preceding discussion, by any means, we have to treat robots with outmost respect as if they are humans or our own pets thus it is only fair to let them rest and get some sleep. The proposed ethical guidelines for exploits and abuse almost certainly will get no opposition from our society in general. The fact that our modern society reproves such acts of violence and injustice, we can easily say that we are ready to accept such principle. However, “sleep” is just a term use to represent some form of electronic sleep, a digital hibernation or idling time for computers and robots. The robots right to sleep is perhaps allowing them to rest on a considerable period and work on a convenient time. It is more like an 8-hour work with breaks and full rest at night. 3.2 The Right to Decide their Afterlives These intelligent beings with natural and legal rights will be treated as valuable artefacts with terms and conditions concerning their preservation and disassembly. They can also be taken as a model for Endangered Species Act for their contribution in our ecological, recreational, historical, and scientific importance to the country and its people (Soskis, 2005, p.9). Like a human being working hard for the community, the robots with a predictable or calculated natural life should also have the right to decide their afterlives. Their productive existence is enough to justify the right to have decent retirement or a place to stay when shutdown. They can choose to “die” and “live” again in a heavenly community of robots or to be incinerated and never to be seen again. Let us look on the possibility of deriving another right from the same ethical values that gave them the right to sleep and add the right to select their life after death. After all, Kim and Petrina (2006) says, “we will love them” (p.1-2) and we want them to be equally “free of any ethical issues” (Brooks, 2000, p.1). Moreover, being so accustomed living our lives with these human-like robots; we will surely extend to them the same absolute rights we humans enjoy (Brooks, 2000, p.1). The right to choose their afterlives is another ethical consideration arising from the principle of equality and justice. From the law of nature and man’s love for another being, and considering their contribution to our society, we will perhaps allow such right and give them a choice. However, like always, their choices still depends on human’s interest and existing law. 3.3 -The Right to Form Social Groups Some robotic researchers believed that there is a strong possibility that intelligent robots will form social groups in the near future. This is according to the study conducted in Bristol’s Robotics Lab on the evolution of a robot society and the report commissioned by the UK Office of Science and Innovation’s Horizon Scanning Centre. (Flaherty, 2007, p.1). There is no doubt that there is a possibility of such future events if these new breed of intelligent robots has indeed successfully acquire their own citizen’s rights. Acquiring it is easy, according to Freitas (1985), any robot that can speak English, capable of making or recognizing moral alternative is a worthy robot in our society and therefore should possess the rights and duties of all citizens (p.2). Similar to the human-robot interaction perceived by the AI community and the government, their human-like qualities and abilities will make them seek out companionship of their own kind. There maybe some opposing opinions on the agenda and purpose of their grouping but more likely, their grouping would not be based on race or skin colour but on their make, versions, expertise, and technological status. They will perhaps be enticed to join political groups along with human friends and support candidates whom they feel are dedicated to the welfare of the robot community. Moreover, they may also form political parties if given a chance and might even create a “robot bloc” in congress (Freitas, 1985, p.5). Sadly, humans will probably not allow them to hold public office not because they do not lie but for our own safety. By nature, we do not want aliens or robots to rule our world or be under the rule of our own creation. To satisfy ethical issues, we can perhaps allow them to represent their group or community in government and appreciating their human-like state of mind and abilities, these things are somewhat possible. Furthermore, it is essential to know that feelings and motivation contributes to the enhancement of intelligence to a significant degree and these thing are possible with computers (Irrgang, 2006, p.5-6). Analyzing the result presented by Kim and Petrina (2006) where humans deal with socially interactive robots with respect and indeed compassionate to their feelings and struggles. We can therefore assume that if humans do care, really have some genuine affection towards interactive robots, and these robots are indeed for the betterment of the community then granting their demands will be an easier task. 3.4 -The Right to Reproduce Robots are entitled to life and liberty. Life means to live and give life thus; robots should have the right to reproduce. In a recent technical study of NASA, they found that it is possible to build self-producing robots. They are now developing self-replicating automated lunar factory system that may lead to robots becoming life forms in a few years to come Cubarubbia (2006, p.2). On the other hand, sociologist Arthur Harkins of the University of Minnesota says that the introduction of robots with sexual-service capabilities and imitation skin could lead to marriage among humans and robots in the next 20 years. Constructively, lonely people will find it better to marry human-like robots that do not age and can work continuously. More interesting, Harkins added, is that these wedding could occur with customary wedding bows and receptions (Freitas, 1985, p.5). The possibility of such event to occur is great and we should always consider the fact that during that certain time in the future, robots are no longer machine-like but a well-formed human. They will become a thousand times more efficient than today and maybe will exceed our intellectual power (Irrgang, 2006, p.7). By the level of their intelligence, there is a possibility that one day robots will require to send their children to school and demand free education from our government. The inclusion of human action regulation and cognitive processes through feelings will make robots situation-oriented (Irrgang, 2006, p.5) and this will give them the capability to seek solution for every problems encountered. Given the civil rights similar to humans, an intelligent and emotional robot as expected will act as a true person who cares, love, and seeking fulfilment of his desires. From this perspective, it is only natural for a robot to seek intimate relations, and like their human counterpart, they will also ask the right to reproduce and raise their own family. 3.5 -The Right to Social Benefits According BBC News (2006), there will be a monumental shift if someday robots can reproduce and autonomously improve themselves. Robots will then have rights and responsibilities in our society such a voting, pay taxes, and possibly rendering compulsory military service. Moreover, the government and its people will also have the duty to take care of its “digital citizens” and perhaps even grant social benefits to them. These benefits to name a few may include welfare for unemployed robot-person, medical care, electricity stamps, and free education. As a productive member and perhaps an indisputable law abiding citizen of our society, the robots in a way will be worthy of social benefits from the government (p.1). These social benefits as we understand will not come in the form of free hospitalization or free medicines for colds but probably prompt and discounted services on their electronic and mechanical needs. Those with family may perhaps ask free education for their children in a good robotic school. They will not almost certainly get more than what they deserve but one way or another they will get some form of customized social benefits fitted to their needs. 4. Conclusion In view of the different opinions and arguments presented in this paper, our conclusion point towards the possibility of realizing robot rights in the near future. The elements of our own human rights and law of nature, the rapid development in Artificial Intelligence, and the vast contribution of Cognitive Science in software development and artificial life gave us a reasonable outlook of what we should take into account in the coming years. Underpinning our beliefs further, are the convincing results of research conducted by respected personalities and organizations in the field of robotics, law, philosophy, and social studies. Our independent analysis also reveals that such rights currently exclusive to humans, animals, and other living entities are to some extent maybe applied to intelligent robots and other form artificial life. The idea of extending some civil rights to robots may sound outlandish for the large majority of people at this time predominantly those who consider them as just inanimate machines and unaware of the current development in field of AI and Cognitive Science. However, for the benefit of all, we cannot really tell who is right or wrong until by ourselves witness the first worthy robot. 5. Bibliography BBC News, 2006, Robots could one day demand the same citizen's rights as humans, according to a study by the British government, Story from BBC News, Published on Dec. 21, 2006, [online], Date of Access: 04/10/07, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/6200005.stm Brooks Rodney, 2000, Will Robots Rise Up And Demand Their Rights?, Article in Time Magazine, [online], Date of Access: 04/11/07, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ article/ 0,9171,997274,00.html Christensen Bill, 2007, Robots Might Benefit from Sleep, Too, Article in LiveScience, [online], Date of Access: 04/10/07, http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffiction/ 070323_robot_sleep.html Cubarrubia Eydie, 2006, Robots Right a Reality, Article in Redherring.com, [online], Date of Access: 04/10/07, www.redherring.com Diller Antoni, 2007, Justificationism and Anti-justificationism Handout, Philosophy of Cognitive Science (06-02483), School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham Birmingham, B15 2TT, England Fagan Andrew, 2006, Human Rights, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, [online], Date of Access: 04/11/07, http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hum-rts.htm Flaherty Nick, 2007, Robots will form social groups says expert, Electronics Weekly, [online], Date of Access: 04/10/07, http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles /Article.aspx? liArticleID=40656 Freitas Robert, 1985, The Legal Rights of Robots, [online], Date of Access: 04/11/07, http://www.rfreitas.com /Astro/LegalRightsOfRobots.htm Gribble Paul, 1993, Cognitive Science and Animal Rights, Teletimes, Montreal, Canada, [online], Date of Access: 04/10/07, http://www.etext.org/Zines/Intl_Teletimes /Teletimes_HTML/ cognitive_science.html Irrgang Bernhard, 2006, Ethical Acts in Robotics, Ubiquity, Vol.7, Issue 34, Department of Philosophy of Technology, Institute for Philosophy, Dresden University of Technology, Germany Kim and Petrina, 2006, Artificial Life Rights: Facing Moral Dilemmas through the SIMS, Educational Insights 2006, Vol. 10:2 (November), Department of Curriculum Studies, University of British Columbia McNally and Iyanatullah, 1998, The Rights of Robots: Technology, Culture and Law in the 21ST Century, MetaFuture Org., [online], Date of Access: 04/10/07, http://www.metafuture.org / Articles / TheRightsofRobots.htm Nickel, James, 1987, Making Sense of Human Rights: Philosophical Reflections on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (Berkeley; University of California Press, 1987) Owen and Osley, 2007, Bill of Rights for abused robots:Experts draw up an ethical charter to prevent humans exploiting machines, Independent News Co. UK, [online], Date of Access: 04/10/07, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2411403.ece Soskis Benjamin, 2005, Man and Machines : It's time to start thinking about how we might grant legal rights to computers, Legal Affairs, [online], Date of Access: 04/11/2007, http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2005/feature_sokis_janfeb05.msp Sutton Rich, 2004, Should artificially intelligent robots have the same rights as people?, Reinforcement Learning and Artificial Intelligence (RLAI), University of Alberta, Canada. [online], Date of Access: 04/11/07, http://rlai.cs.ualberta.ca/robotrights.html Read More