Reply to: Ethical / legal question

[Old Greg]

yes to ignore pointless posters who have nothing useful to add.

But you are programmed to miss the point and overlook usefulness.

[vetran]

Well I'm glad you've learned something.

yes to ignore pointless posters who have nothing useful to add.

[NotAllThere]

Did it mention any specific posters by name?

[doodab]

There's an article in this week's New Scientist that looks interesting (it takes a few days for the magazine to reach us) - "Not like us: Artificial minds we can't understand".

Did it mention any specific posters by name?

[NotAllThere]

People have had affection for their cars for years, yet they don't have any legal rights above that of being a possession. Attacking a group of heavily armed men's favourite motor isn't wise either. If someone managed to destroy the soldiers' robot, and avoid being shot, the best they'd get in a court is recognition of emotional pain and suffering of the soldiers. But it would be additional rights given to the soldiers - not given to the object of their affection.

If true AI is developed, then I'm sure it will eventually be granted rights. The Turing test only tests for human-like intelligence (and even then it certainly isn't perfect). Why should AI's be human-like? There's an article in this week's New Scientist that looks interesting (it takes a few days for the magazine to reach us) - "Not like us: Artificial minds we can't understand".

[Old Greg]

THis is why I love CUK, you learn weird things. I have never thought of arresting a ship but it makes sense. Thinking of Companies they have different laws governing them so one day as Dominic says the AI mob will be the fourth entity.

Well I'm glad you've learned something.

[vetran]

THis is why I love CUK, you learn weird things. I have never thought of arresting a ship but it makes sense. Thinking of Companies they have different laws governing them so one day as Dominic says the AI mob will be the fourth entity.

[Dominic Connor]

English Law

English law and its derivatives (US, Oz, etc) define three types of person

Humans
Companies
Ships

You can arrest a ship, it is a legal entity and you can sue a company or a human person.

In some ways "company" is a derivative of ship, since the commercial idea of people sharing an investment venture and sharing the rewards is rather like how merchants used to operate.

A ship, even one with a lot of computers navigating and managing it is not a sentient entity let alone passing the Turing test and a company exists only as a set of contracts between it and staff, owners, customers and suppliers.

There used to be a 4th class of person, animals.

In medieval times, it was quite common for animals to be tried and executed, not just for hurting peple, but also for witchcraft. A cow probably would not pass the Turing test, but some where executed.

In fact in countries where executions are carried out, they are overwhelmingly carried out on severely mentally damaged or mentally ill people, a badly screwed up human would also fail the Turing test.

In America robots already have substantial human rights.
In the USA, robots attached to military units for bomb disposal etc are treated with the same affection as in older times regimental mascots received. Whereas damaging a vehicle would get you in some trouble, damaging a robot that has worked with a unit puts you in serious jeopardy of your life.
That's not "human rights" in the legal sense, but angering heavily armed men who have formed emotional attachments to a robot is not wise and is proably a better guarantor of good treatment for the entity.

These robots are not in anything like human or animal form, do not speak or have cute eyes or entertaining voices, yet people get attached to them.

Also there is a general upwelling of good feeling towards veterans, and sooner or later someone is going to "hurt" a robot veteran and it will acquire "rights", starting off in much the same way that an old building in Britain can be listed against being knocked down. That's relative new law and upset a lot of people when it started.

So I expect some sort of electronic entity to get some forms of rights within (say) three to five years.

[NotAllThere]

Sorry I'm trying to push myself beyond using the word Cretin in every sentence. Give me a shout if you need help with that.

Sas, you got the wrong logon that time.

[vetran]

Masterful! Exactly the kind of breakdown in sentence structure that could almost convince one that a real organic cretin is posting!

Sorry I'm trying to push myself beyond using the word Cretin in every sentence. Give me a shout if you need help with that.

[vetran]

Does the Turing test signify mens rea?

No its a legal term applied to humans, as posted repeatedly above by multiple posters AI would be a new thing that would require careful consideration probably as new branch of law. Just as the law is changed for different cultures we would need to change it for whole new life forms.

[Old Greg]

What accurate and polite maybe you need to up your game?

Masterful! Exactly the kind of breakdown in sentence structure that could almost convince one that a real organic cretin is posting!

[NotAllThere]

Does the Turing test signify mens rea?

Is that like a cross between being on the blob and having the runs?

[d000hg]

Rubbish. Have you never heard of cat burglars?

HTH

I thought they stole cats!


Anyway is being sentient enough? Is a dolphin or an ape sentient? And even if another life form is sentient, who are we to say they should follow our laws?

[vetran]

A fairly typical output.

What accurate and polite maybe you need to up your game?