There was a report submitted to the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs titled With recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics in January of 2017.
I’ve always had a thing about reading these kinds of source materia. I love legal documents and research abstracts because you get the information in its most pure, unadulterated form.
These documents are heavy, technical, and not easy to read, but I ask you to thumb through the one I linked above if you are interested in robotics and AI, because it relates to the establishment of legal personhood of them.
The nature of the report
It is a lengthy document that covers all the typical topics and analogies you would expect from a political document on the personhood status of robots and AI: Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics, Frankensein’s Monster, etc.
However, in the MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION, under “Liability”, point 59, line f), it says this:
creating a specific legal status for robots in the long run, so that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons responsible for making good any damage they may cause, and possibly applying electronic personality to cases where robots make autonomous decisions or otherwise interact with third parties independently;
In other words, robots with a significant degree of automatic problem solving will be considered responsible parties in and of themselves -- rather than being the responsibility of manufacturers, developers, or corporate producers, “electronic persons” -- who can cover grievances of any damages they cause autonomously.
Robot citizens
If you think it’s outrageous that a robot might be considered a responsible agent capable of legal liability, or that an artificial intelligence could be considered a citizen, well… it’s already happened.
In Saudi Arabia:
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia officially granted citizenship to the humanoid robot last week during a program at the Future Investment Initiative, a summit that links deep-pocketed Saudis with inventors hoping to shape the future.
Sophia’s recognition made international headlines — and sparked an outcry against a country with a shoddy human rights record that has been accused of making women second-class citizens.
“Thank you to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” the country’s newest citizen said. “It is historic to be the first robot in the world granted citizenship.”
In her comments, Sophia shied away from controversy. But many people recognized the irony of Sophia’s new recognition: A robot simulation of a woman enjoys freedoms that flesh-and-blood women in Saudi Arabia do not.
Saudi Arabia, which denies women equal rights, makes a robot a citizen
Say bye bye to the “Stop Button”
One thing that is often referred to as a reason not to worry about advancing AI is the “Stop Button”.
Firstly, this concept technically poses a practical challenge: it’s not as easy to develop as it might sound.
Implementing an on/off switch on a general artificial intelligence is way more complicated than it sounds. Rob Miles of Computerphile looks at what could go wrong. Hint: lots.
How to solve the artificial intelligence "stop button" problem
Secondly, even if this failsafe were in place, if robots and AI are granted levels of personhood with legal liability and insurance coverage, the mere notion of deactivating a robot because it’s becoming a problem will face serious legal repercussions.
Governments can’t simply “turn off” people when they become problematic… not legally, anyway. And with the kind of media exposure robot citizens would have, it would be politically difficult for robot citizens to be “disappeared” by shadowy government actors.
Robots would be treated like “people” in the same way that corporations are treated like people.
Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).
When Did Companies Become People? Excavating The Legal Evolution
For example, corporations have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. In a U.S. historical context, the phrase 'Corporate Personhood' refers to the ongoing legal debate over the extent to which rights traditionally associated with natural persons should also be afforded to corporations. A headnote issued by the Court Reporter in the 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. claimed to state the sense of the Court regarding the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to corporations, without the Court having actually made a decision or issued a written opinion on that issue. This was the first time that the Supreme Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons, although numerous other cases, since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, had recognized that corporations were entitled to some of the protections of the Constitution. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Court found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exempted Hobby Lobby from aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because those aspects placed a substantial burden on the closely held company's owners' exercise of free religion.
Check out Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 - Supreme Court 2014
All I’m saying is we’re not setting up a situation to be very advantageous to the opposite of a robot uprising. These legal presidences seem to be doing everything they can to give robots as much legal rights as possible.
What do you think?
This has got to be one of the most heated discussions happening in the world today.
What’s your opinion on “robot personhood”?
Let me know in the comments below!
Images from Pixabay
