Do artificial beings deserve human rights?
Mike Treder
2011-01-13 00:00:00

She began to cry and wouldn't stop even after E.T. recovered. As we left the theater, I held her in my arms and tried to comfort her, assuring her that E.T. was okay and happy now - and then, switching tack, telling her that it was all just imaginary, just a story. But it was no use, she kept on sobbing uncontrollably.

To this day, even though she is a grown woman with a daughter of her own, she won't watch that movie. I traumatized my child.
kidtv
Whether it is Bambi or Toy Story or cartoons on TV, most of us have seen children respond to animated characters as if they were alive in the real world. Adults and teens react similarly, of course, to characters in well-written novels or well-made movies. We invest our hopes and fears in them and are affected emotionally by their joys and their sorrows.

In truth, there is a long history of humans projecting feelings and aspirations onto inanimate or imaginary objects. The practice may be as old as human speech. We even have a big word for it: anthropomorphization.

Now, let's apply this background knowledge as we consider our evolving relationships with robots. At what point does an -it' become a -him' or a -her'?
robot
For the most part, the robots that are in use today operate in factories and don't look or act anything like humans. But there are steps in the direction of cuteness or aliveness that sometimes can be disconcerting. Take, for instance, this robot singer or this startlingly lifelike "Big Dog" machine.

One of the major differences between robots and characters in a book or a movie is that the former exists in the real world. They are not strictly imaginary, although their -personalities', if any, may have been programmed.

In some cases, we can interact with them, and if they are complex and well-designed, they may even subtly alter their responses as they learn more about us.

A provocative prototype of what the future could hold is Bina48, created by David Hanson of Hanson Robotics, at the request of IEET Trustee Martine Rothblatt and her partner, Bina Rothblatt.

Watch this video:



Notice how the ostensibly objective newspaper reporter says at one point: "Still, I could tell that it was trying."

Even though she refers to Bina48 as -it', the reporter, Amy Harmon, can't help but imbue the machine with a human characteristic - trying to do something - as if Bina48 possesses self-awareness, that it knows it's not fully succeeding at its task, and thus needs to "try" harder.

As I watch this video, I confess that I also find myself thinking of the robot, the machine, as a person, or at least as such a near-convincing portrayal of a person that it begins to achieve "suspension of disbelief."

Compared to what will likely come in the next decade or two, Bina48 is still rather crude and primitive. But progress is steadily moving forward. It is time for us to start thinking about the gradual humanization of robots and the near-certain eventual creation of mobile machines that will look and act so much like people that we may not be able to know for sure which is which.

Will those robots at some point deserve "human rights" or "personhood rights"? How will we determine when that point is reached?

I'm not going to suggest that I have definitive answers to these difficult questions. I am pleased to announce, though, that the IEET is beginning a serious new project, under the direction of George Dvorsky, aimed at investigating and refining the existing definitions of personhood and the criteria sufficient for the recognition of non-human persons and their rights. We'll have more information on that coming soon.

But just for fun, let's ask the readers of this blog for their initial opinions on the subject of rights for robots.

When, if ever, will a robot deserve "human" rights?



We've just opened a new poll on this topic. Please let us know what you think!