Difficult to Discern
Furthermore, this proposal assumes that no matter how advanced they become, “artificially intelligent agents will [continue to] be subordinate to humans” (Ashrafian 321). In this proposal artificially intelligent robots are welcomed into society but are not given the same rights as a fully sentient human. Ashrafian outlines a plan based on ancient Roman law “where [robots] would not self-replicate, stand in public office or own land and business but would be protected by the law and have the ability to contribute to society through examples such as defending nations and participating in the healthcare sector” (325). Just like smart phones or computer, these robots will become more advanced over time, but they will “still [just be] a tool to serve human purposes” (Etzioni 31).
Another key aspect of this proposal is legislation required to ensure the safety of human kind. Rules will need to be written to ensure that artificial entities are not allowed to masquerade as real people. Walsh develops an aptly named “Turing Red Flag Law” that would require “An autonomous system [to] be designed so that it is unlikely to be mistaken for anything besides an autonomous system, and should identify itself at the start of any interaction with another agent” (35). This would have ensured that the injured man in the beginning of the website would not have been confused by the “robodoc.” Similarly, “AI Guardians” will be implemented to watch over such AIs to ensure they do not stray from their designated parameters (Etzioni 30).
The second proposal makes completely different assumptions from the first, but is still set at a theoretic point where these AIs are hard to tell apart from humans. This proposal assumes that while these AIs might look and sound a lot like humans, that this is simply because they were programed to. In reality, “all they do is execute a preinstalled programme,” so an AI can never possess free will (Marx 83). This is described as a determinist view, holding that “all events are pre-‘determined’ and therefore negate the concept of free will” (Ashrafian 319). Even an entity programed to have some degree of free will, simply by the nature of being programmed, neutralizes such efforts. Even today “simple chat program[s]” like “ELIZA” which use “a small range of pre-programmed response” can appear to be human-like even though they are simply responding in a pre-determined way (Schwitzgebel 111). If you try out ELIZA, which I totally recommend, you will quickly realize that it can only ever amount to the limited amount of programming put into it, so obviously not sentient.
Maestro, suspenseful music please… Remember that the criteria for the proposals are feasibility, acceptability, ethics, and fairness. For this, the second proposal I have judged the following in each criterion:
Feasibility – Moderate
Justification: Like the first, it will require a considerable amount of effort, time, and resources to accomplish. However, given the prevalence of robots now, and considering the potential for the future, this is an issue that will need to be addressed. And if there is a need such matters as effort, time and resources will be found to address the need.
Acceptability – Moderate
Justification: I think such a proposal would split the population’s opinion. On the one side, people who fear modern advances would likely be for such strong protective regulations, and on the other, social justice proponents would likely be adamantly against a proposal that affectively creates a second-class citizen.
Ethics – Poor
Justification: Something about this proposal feels wrong, creating lower class citizens whose only place in society it to do work for human-kind just doesn’t pass the morality test. Perhaps its not murder but something’s free will is being stolen. As for charity and goodwill, they certainly appear to be lacking.
Fairness – Poor
Justification: Having to identify one’s, in effect, ethnicity before interacting is most definitely a form of discrimination. And by creating a lower-class citizen there is definitely a group of individuals who are being treated unfairly. As I mentioned earlier one group of people should not be allowed to better themselves at the expense of another group of entities simply because they make the rules.
Marvin the Manically Depressed Robot. 2005. Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy (2005). Pinterest. By Touchstone Pictures and Spyglass Entertainment. Web. 3 Apr. 2017.
Arnold Schwarzenegger in The Terminator (1984). 1984. The
Terminator (1984). IMBD. By Orion Pictures. Web. 3 Apr. 2017.