Tango01 | 13 Apr 2018 4:13 p.m. PST |
… to Recognize Robots as Legal Persons "Over 150 experts in AI, robotics, commerce, law, and ethics from 14 countries have signed an open letter denouncing the European Parliament's proposal to grant personhood status to intelligent machines. The EU says the measure will make it easier to figure out who's liable when robots screw up or go rogue, but critics say it's too early to consider robots as persons—and that the law will let manufacturers off the liability hook…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
Cacique Caribe | 13 Apr 2018 5:52 p.m. PST |
OMG. Don't they realize that they're going to hurt the feelings of robots and that then they're going to kill us all? Dan PS. My fridge speaks and told me it wants to vote in the next elections. I told it fine, but good luck voting in Mexico where it was made. :) |
ZULUPAUL | 14 Apr 2018 2:51 a.m. PST |
We really have degenerated the definition of human. A soulless machine cannot be human or a "person". |
clibinarium | 14 Apr 2018 3:36 a.m. PST |
Well its person-hood in a legal sense that's being discussed, not the philosophical sense. Soulless corporations have been legal persons for quite a while now. Not that that's without problems. A legal distinction is made between different categories of "legal person" – living human beings are "natural persons", and other entities like companies or charities are called "fictitious/artificial persons". Legal personhood is necessary to have rights and responsibilities attach. Seems early to be making hard decisions about legal personhood for AIs, but important to discuss it ahead of the tech being developed. For now they are pretty much no different than any other hardware. The tricky philosophical question will come around when AIs that are self aware and can experience suffering are made. Apart from that, what seems more urgent to me is whether we should be making AIs much smarter than us, the workings of which even the the makers don't comprehend. |
Roderick Robertson | 14 Apr 2018 11:14 a.m. PST |
We really have degenerated the definition of human. A soulless machine cannot be human or a "person". Neither can a corporation (many of which are soulless), but the US Supreme Court ruled they could be. |
Cacique Caribe | 14 Apr 2018 11:51 a.m. PST |
And lots of biological humans behave in a "soul-less" way too! :) Dan |
zoneofcontrol | 14 Apr 2018 6:50 p.m. PST |
"The EU says the measure will make it easier to figure out who's liable when robots screw up or go rogue," And to file on their behalf to collect their paycheck and pension, death benefits…" |
Cacique Caribe | 14 Apr 2018 7:31 p.m. PST |
Yep. More opportunities for work and money … for the lawyers. And more clutter in an already slow Judicial and Legislative system. Dan |
ScottWashburn | 15 Apr 2018 4:10 a.m. PST |
Someone in the EU Parliament has been watching too much West World. They need to be informed that at the moment there ARE NO intelligent, autonomous robots. Nothing even close. And they are doing this so that robots can 'make good' on damage they might cause? Make good with what? Where would robots get any money? Are they going to insist that robots be paid? That sort of defeats the whole purpose of them, doesn't it? |
zoneofcontrol | 15 Apr 2018 6:11 a.m. PST |
We had a court case of similar subject matter her in PA. A company defrauded a municipality on a contract. They were arrested and found guilty of the crime. Restitution was part of the sentencing. However, the defendants appealed the verdict and the case went as far as the PA Supreme Court. The court said the defendant did not have to reimburse the municipality because the municipality is not a human being. "The key issue is that Bethlehem Township is not a human being, so it can't be a victim, Musmanno found." link |