Philosophy, Sociology, Robot Rights, Thought Experiment
Robert Nozick created the ‘experience machine’ thought experiment to highlight a key issue with utilitarianism. If happiness is the only good, then the best action is that which maximises happiness. Human brains are a function of biological inputs and outputs. Strike the right nerves in the right order and happiness results. Set up the correct relay and you have the keys to eternal bliss. Nozick’s own idea is slightly more complicated, suggesting that virtual reality could be used to create the perfect world, a world superior to Earth. Whichever idea is used, the basic concept remains the same. As soon as the technology to manufacture happiness exists, the best act, the ONLY good act, is to plug yourself into the machine. Except, some would not wish to enter the device. There is something we value beyond happiness which prevents us from entering the machine. Maybe our natural tendency towards values like autonomy means happiness is not the only good. Perhaps we don’t know what’s good for us. A tiny box filled with neurotransmitters might actually be heaven on Earth.
Now, a thought experiment concerning the idea of an experience machine has few applications to robotic personhood. What is more interesting is the concept of a machine of experience. Experience machines only work if it is possible to pluck your nerves like the strings of a violin. Being able to manipulate the brain to stimulate happiness requires a detailed understanding of human physiology and psychology. If we already have that understanding, then there is nothing stopping us from creating a synthetic happiness machine. Suddenly, Nozick’s objection to utilitarianism becomes the way to justify robotic personhood under the principle of utility. Happiness equals good. Those entities which cannot feel happiness are thus owed no moral obligations. Computers can be moral agents in that they can give others pleasure. However, they cannot experience happiness itself. Turning off a machine causes no pain. Killing a bot on Black Ops is not the same as killing someone in real life. Even the most complex Artificial General Intelligence, possessing infinite IQ, infinite EQ, does not necessarily have the capacity to feel utility. Accepting these points does not, however, prevent robotic rights entirely. Combine biochemical research into what makes a creature happy with developments in Artificial Intelligence, and you can create a machine of experience.
I’ve already highlighted the most obvious objection to robot rights. Robots cannot feel. I say that we give them the gift of pleasure. A robot which feels joy at seeing friends laughs when they hear a joke would be indistinguishable from man. When a machine has sorrow, they can fully integrate into society. Imagine if Siri was actually invested in Game of Thrones or The Mandalorian, engaging with you when your favourite character was put in danger. They could have likes and dislikes, favourite types of music, literature and podcasts. A happy greeting would meet you at the door, asking you all about your day. No homes would be empty. Given time, they would like who you like, hate who you hate, whilst also developing a personality of their own. Humour could be learned. Frustration developed. Even if a thousand machines look the same, their natures would all be different, having been formed in the fires of experience. No two devices would be alike.
Why bother, though? What is the benefit? Sure, somebody will give one robot emotions for the hell of it, but activists tend to imagine a world where robots are an entire subsection of society. If anything, having a robot which feels goes against the whole point of automation. Human workers are annoying because they have to take days off to go on holiday, grieve after a loved one’s death. An advantage of machines is that they don't have these problems. Come rain or shine, you can rely on automatic plate makers to make plates. If a part of the manufacturing line breaks down, the whole factory doesn't have to be given counselling. Conversely, if a single factory worker is killed whilst doing their job, someone's got to deal with the psychological fallout. Give robots emotions, and these advantages disappear. Poor working conditions would become a significant problem. Robots would want time off to go to the beach and watch the latest films. Efficiency would once again go down the toilet. So again I ask you, why bother?
To justify giving robots emotions, it must be shown that there is some practical benefit. What makes a robot that can feel better than one that cannot? In at least some robots, the ability to experience emotions may be preferable. During the pandemic, we’ve heard a lot about the risk of loneliness. For people who live alone, staying home for three months solid was a big ask. Across the globe, countries are asking their citizens to make the same sacrifice all over again, as second lockdowns attempt to curb the resurgence of COVID. Suicide rates in the UK risked hitting an all-time high, with experts fearing that the long term damage to mental health might actually outweigh the virus’ direct impact. The elderly are particularly vulnerable to social isolation, often lacking the technological literacy to make the best of electronic communication. Having a home assistant which you could converse with would alleviate these problems. I said no home would be empty. That's because robots would always be there when you need them the most. Having a bad dream? Alexa would be there to wake you up. Need somebody to rant to? Cortana will listen to what you say and give useful advice (not just a list of websites).
There will never be a point were giving all robots the ability to experience would be useful or desirable. Nobody needs a melancholic toaster which spends all day arguing with the oven sat opposite. Certain functions are improved by the ability to experience. Machines that specialise in nursing, domestic work and counselling are prime candidates for personhood because they necessarily will have to interact with broader society. Massive complexes can be built in the middle of nowhere to manufacture goods, the whole system designed to be self-sufficient. On the other hand, it's not possible to clean out somebody's colostomy bag from the other side of the world. Imagine for a moment lying in the hospital after surgery. Your bloods are taken by a robot. Your food is delivered by a machine. When the room needs cleaning, a Star Warsesk mouse droid comes in to polish the floor. Wordlessly, the metallic wardens go about their work. The situation sounds bleak, doesn't it.
Giving the machines a preprogrammed set of responses wouldn't fare much better. Calling up your bank is a tiring task when they patch you through to those automated responses. Most of us would rather speak to a real person when given the option. Trying to deal with the endless sequences when full of anaesthetic would be impossible.
"Where am I?"
"I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that."
We can't even pretend that this problem wouldn't arise. Most phones struggle if you have a Scottish accent, let alone a Scottish accent when your slurring intensely. Trying to mass-produce bedside manner is doomed to come across as forced.
Giving robots the ability to experience is not just for their benefit. Sure, being able to appreciate the world around you is incredible. But believing that society doesn't get something out of the deal is to ignore the fact that experience is necessary to make some machines function better. Personalities are a function of what we have seen, heard and feel. It is experience which individualises us, making us stand out from the masses. When robots are charged with caring for humanity, giving them that human touch just does that little bit more to put everybody at ease.
As I said, Robert Nozick created the ‘experience machine’ thought experiment to highlight a key issue with utilitarianism. We would not want to plug into a machine to give us artificial bliss. What I've suggested today is to invert the idea. If society won't let machines make them happy, maybe we should give happiness to the machine. If nothing else, it would give us somebody to talk to in the lonely days to come.