The Big Robot Questions

Here is my two cents on the question posed in the original article from your link:

• Are there unique legal or moral hazards in designing machines that can autonomously kill people? Or should robots merely be considered tools, such as guns and computers, and regulated accordingly?

I think that until we develop the need and the wherewithal to declare a robot a sentient entity, then they should be considered tools, and applicable liability law with a few tweaks should be ok.

• Are we ethically allowed to give away our caretaking responsibility for our elderly and children to machines, which seem to be a poor substitute for human companionship (but perhaps better than no—or abusive—companionship)?

Would you ask this question of a hospital bed than can adjust position, or a mobile chair that improves mobility? A robot, at least for now, is just a sophisticated device that can assist a person as a mobile chair does. It is not necessary to make these devices sentient in order to get great utility.

• Will robotic companionship for other purposes, such as drinking buddies, pets, or sex partners, be morally problematic?

Society will have to adjust and adapt to new technology as we always have. There will probably always be a few people who will resist change, but society as a whole can adapt.

• At what point should we consider a robot to be a “person,” eligible for rights and responsibilities? If that point is reached, will we need to emancipate our robot “slaves”?

If a robot can think and reason independent of original programming, and is capable of indicating a desire for freedom from oppression, then we will have no choice but to consider that request.

• As they develop enhanced capacities, should cyborgs have a different legal status than ordinary humans? Consider that we adults assert authority over children on the grounds that we’re more capable.

This is a tough one. We have to assume that eventually a computer will be many millions of times smarter than us. I think that as we become more and more dependent on technology, that legal issues will become less important. Shedding the use of money alone would eliminate 99% of legal matters. However, the real answer, which is not really an answer, is that it depends on the needs of a future society that we could no more envision than a cave man could see the need for product liability laws.

• At what point does technology-mediated surveillance count as a “search,” which would generally require a judicial warrant?

Here we get into what is privacy, and when is that privacy violated. The meaning of privacy has shifted dramatically with the use of social media. People now expose to the world, things that would have horrified their parents and grandparents. That is likely a trend that will continue. However the real question is if a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, can surveillance be used to violate that privacy. I would think not. For example, a camera on the street corner in a public place does not violate privacy because in a public place there is no expectation of privacy. However, in your bedroom or even your back yard (if you have a high fence) there may be an expectation of privacy. In that case a surveillance drone that can monitor you, without your knowing or granting permission, is in violation.

@DN Irving
Quote: “As for “ethics”, there are dozens of different schools of ethics in the history of philosophy, all of which are philosophically dependent on idiosyncratic prior anthropology and metaphysics. The same is true for any of the post-modern or current philosophers mentioned (many of which are worse off than ethics theories preceding them by centuries). No “ethics” is neutral, by definition, including Kant, Mill, Nietzsche, etc. So by what criteria should a whole society determine which “ethics” to use in the genetic engineering of the human mind?”

As for ethics. Hmm. Also science does rely on schools of ‘thought’, on history and on research that has ‘history’.
Ethics is fluid - it is developed out of society’s needs, it discusses contemporary issues (Bostrom et al, David Roden ...). Yes, no ethics is neutral. And science is not neutral either. The development of new ethics is vital in something that some call a transhuman or posthuman society (please note the emphasis on SOME).

Lets not forget that a newish term has popped up again. Neo-eugenics. In a way this goes quite well together with

quote DN Irving “I’m not sure I would buy an ethics theory for genetically engineering the human brain from those with only math, physics, mechanical engineering, computer IT — or even philosophy degrees (unless they also had Ph.D. degrees in human genetics as well).” 

This would be a form of neo-eugenics, eradicating unwanted traits or only allowing wanted ones. Let’s not forget that fads, fashion and utilitarian needs define what is wanted and unwanted.

Perhaps this is also an anglo-american narrative! I had quite heated discussions on Sens foundation about this. I am a strong defender of artists and their quirkiness, something that I assume is unwanted in certain narratives. Most of the narratives are formed by utilitarian, economically driven (perhaps radical capitalism) ideas that want to design resilient and perhaps ideologically adequate ‘superhumans’. Lets not be naive and forget the ideologies behind some of the scientifically infused narratives for a new society. Not only will illnesses (and I still wonder if some have more or less positive properties), but also certain quite quirky or perhaps ‘evolutionary’ or societal important traits will be abolished. How horrible. This could really lead to a ‘Brave New World’.

About the good and the bad. Very dualistic! Good and bad need frameworks. And about the Hippocratic oath, another poster had mentioned previously. It has been broken so many times, without repercussions, so lets not be naive. We need an extensive ethical contemporary framework that dances together with developments in society and science.

PS: The idea of replicating a cell or a whole brain. So what. The brain is the centre of humanity?  What about all the nerve pathways and the little decentralised nerve stations like spinal cord, etc. Sometimes I despair about these monolithic narratives. Singularity. Unified theory, THE BRAIN. Perhaps this is all coming from monotheistic.  Culturally influenced historical thinking patterns? LOL