The Robots Are Coming: Real Laws For Synthetic Citizens?

At what point does artificial life become real life? Where is the line drawn between a synthetic organism and an organic one? Can the two positions ever be reconciled?

It are these, and a variety of these questions that we will have to answer in the not too distant future. Ignoring them now, could mean peril later.

In my article The Robots Are Coming: Symbiosis Or Slavery? A Place For Human Thinking, I make the case for the ongoing role in human thinking in our A.I. future. I point out that there is enough that is unique about human thought to render it somewhat special and extremely useful. Even if you just so happen to be a machine super intelligence.

Let us now look at the flip side of the coin. If machine intelligence ever gains the power to think along the same conscious lines as us. Will we grant them the same moral rights as us, or even other sentient creatures?

In other words, will they legally be viewed as citizens?

Synthetic Ethics

Why is it OK to squash a bug, but not to kill a human being?

How would you react to me if you saw me swat a fly?

How would you react to me if you saw me kill a dog?

Imagine you have a replica gun, it looks pretty real but in fact it is not, it is a rather clever cigarette lighter. I actually have one of these (pictured), it's very realistic and I definitely wouldn't take it to an airport.

So imagine that this gun is yours. When you pull the trigger, as long as there is butane gas in the chamber, a small blue flame emerges from the end of the barrel.

One day you decide to make the replica more realistic. You take it to an expert and tell him that you want the gun to seem more genuine.

The expert tells you no problem and asks you to leave the replica with her (you weren't expecting a female gun expert were you? I know I wasn't!), and come back in a few days.

Three days later you return to the expert's shop, and she tells you that the replica is more realistic, however you won't be able to use it as a lighter anymore. The reason being, she has converted the clip that previously held the lighter gas, into one that holds 9mm bullets.

You thank her, and pay her for the work and off you go with your new replica.

A couple of weeks later, you decide that even though she's done a fantastic job converting the clip. She has left the lighter bit in the end of the barrel. So you return to the shop and ask her to remove it so that it looks even more realistic.

She agrees and as before, asks you to return in a few days.

When you go back to her, she has done as you ask and now the barrel of the replica looks like the barrel of a real gun.

However you are still not satisfied, you realise that when you cock the barrel, you cannot see the bullet in the chamber. So you return once more and ask for modifications.

Next you want the bullets to actually feed from the clip to the chamber.

Then you want to be able to eject a bullet from the chamber.

Then you want the replica to be in the 'half-cocked' position when it's empty.

Finally you want the replica to be able to actually fire bullets.

As the gun expert gives you your replica back after the latest modification she says to you;

"There you go, this replica is now indistinguishable from the real thing. As far as anyone who sees, holds, or fires this thing is concerned, it is a 100% genuine Beretta 9mm pistol."

So the question is;

Is the gun still a replica pretending to be the real thing, or can we actually call it a real gun?

More to the point,

Does the distinction even matter?

Minds Within Minds

Now imagine that instead of a replica gun you want to make more realistic, it is a simulated mind that you want to make more human.

It is not unreasonable to assume that if such a set of steps were possible for a current artificially intelligent piece of software. Then the end result is that we would have an artificial intelligence that was indistinguishable from an original, and conventional intelligence.

In other words we will have created a synthetic human mind, which will be, well . . . human.

Defining A Point Of Being

Whilst genuine human-like thinking may be a way off, it is still worth thinking about the upcoming ethical conundrum we are going to find ourselves in once computing and A.I. get to a certain point.

As a society, we are going to have to decide exactly when we are going to consider something being alive, intelligent and having rights.

In much the same way that the law has decided a specific point at which a person may legally abort their baby. So too will it have to determine when a piece of machinery or code attains a legal right to citizenship.

In the United Kingdom, the point after which you can no longer abort your fetus is 24 weeks, meaning that a 25 week old fetus is a recognised citizen and member of the human race. With just as many legal rights as you or I. In the United States the abortion limit is similar, though it varies from state to state.

Abortion limits were originally set according to the point at which a fetus can survive outside the mother's body. However advancements in medical science are changing that point. The youngest known person to survive a premature birth is an unnamed baby girl from San Antonio, Texas, born in 2014 at 21 weeks and 4 days.

What this goes to show us, is that the issue of life is fluid. In 1946 a UK survey showed that no babies under the weight of 2 lbs 3 oz survived, which is the weight of a 28 weeks old fetus. Yet the little girl cited above, weighed less than half of that and was born almost 2 months before, and is still alive today.

The Changing Nature Of Life

I suppose where we set the defining point for life will come from the resulting debate as to exactly what life is in the first place.

Going back to the replica gun example, there is less debate as to what point a replica becomes real. In that scenario we have function to guide us. Until the gun can fire real bullets and be used to kill someone, we can carry on calling it a replica.

However life is perhaps not so easily defined by function. Of course you could say that reproduction is the ultimate signal that something is alive. However doing so is just introducing a changeable variable. At one point in their history A.I. will be able to clone themselves using their own constituent code.

In fact we have already seen this today, whereby one visual recognition system designed a better version of itself. Whilst this in itself is not reproduction, it could be looked back as the early forerunner to A.I. birth.

Ask And We Shall Know

Unlike premature birthing rights, A.I. rights may be a lot easier to determine. For one, we'll be able to talk to them directly and philosophise together about what it means to be alive.

As soon as one of these artificially intelligent machines expresses the desire to remain switched on, that for me is the point whereby the artificial facsimile, becomes real, honest-to-goodness life.

Because one thing we can say for sure is that anything alive, tends to want to stay that way.

Sources

Abortion in the United Kingdom - Wiki

Abortion in the United States - Wiki

Roe Vs Wade - Landmark US abortion case, Wiki

Miracle daughter delivered at 21 weeks - USA Today

Premature Birth and the NHS - *People's History of the NHS

Your Pregnancy Week by Week - John Hopkins

Related Article

The Robots Are Coming: Symbiosis Or Slavery? A Place For Human Thinking

Google AI Creates Its Own Child - Independent

Robots Are Coming Contents Page

The Robots Are Coming: The Story So Far - Content Links #1

WHAT DO YOU THINK, WILL WE SEE THE EMERGENCE OF ARTIFICIAL LIFE ANYTIME SOON? WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE HUMAN RACE IF WE DO CREATE DIGITAL LIFE? SHOULD OUR FUTURE SENTIENT FRIENDS BE AFFORDED THE SAME LEVEL OF RIGHTS AS HUMAN BEINGS, OR EVEN OTHER ORGANIC SPECIES ON OUR PLANET?

AS EVER, LET ME KNOW BELOW!

Title image: Markus Spiske on Unsplash
Inset image: @Cg

Cryptogee