NationStates Jolt Archive

On behalf of the region of robots for technolotry, The Federation of Questionable Industries is drafting the following Proposal to explicitly protect the rights of Mechanical Citizens. We encourage and welcome comments, criticisms and advice on this Draft.

NOTE: this DRAFT has undergone several considerable revisions and so if some comments seem confusing, they may refer to verbiage that is no longer extant within this Resolution.
*****

Rights of Mechanical Citizens
Category: Human Rights
Strength: strong
Proposed by the Federation of QuestionableIndustries.

NOTING that many of the Resolutions that protect the basic rights of and assign responsibilities to citizens of NSUN member nations explicitly grant said rights to "humans." (see Resolution #26 as an example).

RECOGNIZING that many nations have significant bio-mechanical and/or fully mechanical populations that may not be considered "human" under current conventional definition.

CONCERNED that bio-mechanical and fully mechanical citizens not considered to be human may not be granted full protections and rights or held to the same duties and responsibilities as to their "human" counter-parts by law.

MINDFUL that it is outside the purview of this Resolution to posit definitions of the philosophical concepts "intelligence" or "sentience" and no attempt to do so is made or implied herein.

We PROPOSE the following:

ARTICLE I. Establishment of an internationally recognized Turing Test in order to delineate the Mechanical Citizen from other non-eligible mechanical beings. This test will stardarize the criteria by which Mechanical Citizen status is to be defined for purposes of NSUN policy. See APPENDIX for test details.

ARTICLE II. Automatic extention of all laws that grant so-called "human rights" to explicitly include Mechanical Citizens (as established in ARTICLE I) of NSUN member nations.

ARTICLE III. While legislation dealing with rights and freedoms may be easily expanded to include Mechanical Citizens, the physical needs of the mechanical and the biological corpus differ greatly. While many NSUN Resolutions (Resolution #20, for example) declare proper Health Care a right of all people, it is necessary that "robotics techonologies" be recognized as the mechanical body's analogue to biological body's "medical techologies." As such, all Health Care resolutions (past and future) should be read as mandates to provide and fund research into maintenance of both the biological bodies of “humans” and the mechanical bodies of Mechanical Citizens.

APPENDIX: As stated in ARTICLE I of the present Resolution, a Turing Test will be used to determine Artificial Intelligence. Passing this test will grant the subject all Human Rights enjoyed by “human” citizens of NSUN member states. The test shall be as follows:

1. The prospective Mechanical Citizen and a Biological Human will be placed in isolated rooms.
2. A panel of impartial Judges, in the employ of the NSUN, will ask a series of 50 NSUN-approved questions of both parties, unaware of who occupies which room or by whom each answer is supplied.
3. Each party will answer the questions (in writing) with the goal of convincing the judges that he/she/it is Biological Human.
4. Judges will examine the answers and attempt to glean which of the two answers to each question was provided by the prospective Mechanical Citizen and which was provided by the Biological Human.
5. If the Judges are unable the distinguish the prospective Mechanical Citizen's answers from the Biological Human’s (that is, they mistake the prospective M.C.'s answer for the Human answer) on 20 or more questions the prospective Mechanical Citizen gains official NSUN recognition as a “Mechanical Citizen” and is thereby subject to all of the rights, duties, protections and responsibilities laid out in this Resolution.

*****

Please consider this Draft and leave your comments, criticisms and questions.
Thank you for your consideration and time,

Why not expand this to biological sapients, as well as artificial ones?

Do we count politicians as human? Shouild they have rights, If they have batteries for pacemakers, hearing aids, interesting lifestyle ftishes, should we count that as artificial? Who voted them in anyway.....or didn't/couldn't vote?

Why not expand this to biological sapients, as well as artificial ones?

Unless I misunderstand your question, you appear to be asking "why not extend Human Rights to humans?" Clearly, biological humans already have human rights as laid out by all those NSUN Resolutions with the so-named Category, so I am confused about your suggestion.

The present Proposal seeks to extend those Human Rights already enjoyed by biological humans to include the non-"human," Artificially Intelligent world citizens.

To the Representative from Bahgum:
I am sorry but I do not understand your question. If you would like to rephrase it and ask again, I would be happy to respond.

Now that is funny........

We oppose the use of a Turing Test due to its well-documented problems. Research into non-competition Turing Tests (that is, where judges are not asked 'which is human?' but 'is this human?') show that a human with poor literacy will often be judged to be non-human, and that even humans with good literacy will be occasionally be judged non-human - these show that an intelligent being can easily fial the Turing Test. The test is biased towards real human languages - machines will have to learn a human language to be able to pass, but we wouldn't say a mono-lingual human was not intelligent. The test requires machines to lie to questions such as 'are you human?'. The test only permits the acknowledgement of human-style intelligence - a machine with differing or higher intelligence could give characteristically different answers and hence be judged non-intelligent.

Unless I misunderstand your question, you appear to be asking "why not extend Human Rights to humans?" Clearly, biological humans already have human rights as laid out by all those NSUN Resolutions with the so-named Category, so I am confused about your suggestion.

The present Proposal seeks to extend those Human Rights already enjoyed by biological humans to include the non-"human," Artificially Intelligent world citizens.
Not all biological citizens of the UN are human - there are elves, dwarves, gnomes, vampires, etc.

To the Representative from Bahgum:
Now that is funny........
The people of the Federation of Questionable Industries Pride themselves on their senses of humor and so, though it was not my intent to provide humor, ettiquette compels me to thank you kindly for the compliment.

To the Representative from Golgothastan:
Not all biological citizens of the UN are human - there are elves, dwarves, gnomes, vampires, etc.
This is true enough and we encourage any group troubled by their exclusion to seek Legislation to ensure their proper protection under the law.

To the Representative from Safalra:
We too are skeptical of a Turing Test but feel that it is necessary to have some method of determining what is Artificially Intelligent and what is an appliance. Without such a test, this Proposal risks granting Human Rights to your toaster oven. But let us seek to allay your specific concerns:

Research into non-competition Turing Tests (that is, where judges are not asked 'which is human?' but 'is this human?') show that a human with poor literacy will often be judged to be non-human, and that even humans with good literacy will be occasionally be judged non-human - these show that an intelligent being can easily fial the Turing Test.
First, we are NOT proposing a non-competition test. We are explicitly asking the question "which is human" which should satisfy your concern on this front.


The test is biased towards real human languages - machines will have to learn a human language to be able to pass, but we wouldn't say a mono-lingual human was not intelligent.
We readily admit this as a flaw to the Turing Test in the general case of determining "intelligence." At the moment, the concern is not one of Philosophy however: it is one of political expediency.
Is an NSUN certification as "Artificially Intelligent" really the same as "intelligence"?
I don't know and it is honestly outside the purview of NSUN to decide. We shall leave it to philosophers to debate. What is important is that the Test we propose in this Resolution provides an easy standard by which we can divide non-biological citizens deserving of rights from electric can-openers deserving of none.
In order to participate as a citizen, an Artificially Intelligent Being should be able to communicate with the human/biological majority, as such I do not feel that the dependence upon human language and "human-style intelligence" is a detriment to the test in this particular application.

We thank you all heartily for your concerns regarding our Proposal and if we have not addressed them sufficiently, please feel free to respond.
Thank you,

You might want to gravedig a bit, and find a recently failed sapient rights resolution.

This is true enough and we encourage any group troubled by their exclusion to seek Legislation to ensure their proper protection under the law.
And why should we do this piecemeal when one will written proposal can cover all of them at once.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Needless to say, I'm quite interested in seeing how this turns out.

-Anesca PHALANX, Adminstrator of the Hack Neural Network
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Wyldtree would be opposed to this proposal or anything like it. Artificial lifeforms are not even allowed without our borders. Past and future UN resolutions being applied to biomechanical and fully mechanical creations could well interfere with our policies involving such things. There is no version of this I believe could be supported by us.

The real question is, at what point can you define a creature/machine as sentient, and worthy of rights. it can't be based on biology, ants are organic but not sentient, they are more robotic than some machines, they do not warrant rights. At what level are you rendered sentient, are dogs sentient? They seem to feel emotion, but do they question their environment, or have dreams and goals on that level that defines humanity, and true sentients? Can you relegate rights based on level of sentients, dogs having animal rights, ants having no rights at all, and humans having full compliment of rights?

Again, how do you define a machine as sentient? Can any test really tell if a machine has dreams/goals/emotions, or if it is simply programmed that way. Can a machine truely acheive sentients? Or is it simply ever more complex programming. If we enact these laws, how far will they go? Will I be arrested for throwing out my automatic vacuum?

Until we can truly define sentients, I oppose this proposal, although I fully support any robotic nations laws defending it's citiczens, to create an internation set of guidlines on such vague concepts at this time...I cannot allow it.

To the Representative from Fonzoland
You might want to gravedig a bit, and find a recently failed sapient rights resolution.
The Federation of Questionable Industries is familiar with the um "debate" that surrounded the Failed "Rights of Biological Sapients" Proposal. Our proposal was drafted in such a way that (we hope) it will avoid some of the more insipid criticisms to which that Resolution fell prey.
Is there some particular section of the aforementioned Proposal (or the debate surrounding it) to which you would call our specific attention? Do you have any specific criticism or advice. Critique from such a respected and experienced member of the NSUN community as Fonzoland would certainly be appreciated.

To the Representative from Flibbleites
And why should we do this piecemeal when one will written proposal can cover all of them at once.
Bob Flibble
UN Representative
While we do recognize that the "anthropocentric tendencies of UN legislation" (to quote the Failed "Rights of Biological Sapients" Proposal) do adversely affect a wide array of world citizens, the main reason we feel an Artificial Intelligence Resolution should stand more or less on its own is the content of ARTICLE III which speaks to the specific and quite distinct needs of the mechanical population.

To the Representative from The Most Glorious Hack
OOC: Would a Proposal so-worded run afoul of the Real Life references prohibition by using the term "Turing Test"?

To the Representative from Dancing Bananland
The real question is, at what point can you define a creature/machine as sentient, and worthy of rights.
With all due respect, we believe that the definition of sentience has NOTHING to do with this Resolution. It may indeed make entirely apropos subject for fascinating philosophical treatise, essay, meditation, poem, tract or textbook. This, however, is a NSUN Resolution.
This Resolution makes no claims regarding the nature of sentience, humanity, does not address the existence of a soul and will not make your hair grow back thicker and fuller. The Turing Test employed in this Resolution determines "Artificial Intelligence" a matter of political expediency not ontological fact. In fact, the Resolution Draft will be rewritten immediately to help mediate this confusion for future readers.
Thank you.

All comments, questions and suggestions are welcomed and appreciated. Thank you those who have taken the time to read and Critique this Proposal draft.

Well, to be honest I am familiar with the Turing Test, and do not trust it at all. I believe the methods established in the previous proposal were sounder in some ways.

First, a quote comes to mind:

"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." -- Albert Einstein

ARTICLE I. Establishment of an internationally recognized Turing Test in order to delineate the Artificially Intelligent from other non-intelligent mechanical beings. This test will stardarize the criteria by which Artificial Intelligence is to be defined for purposes of NSUN policy. See APPENDIX for test details.
You are making a fundamental mistake that is represented by the quote above: intellegence (even as measured by the Turing Test) represents only mental capability, not the ability to make decisions or feel emotion. Granted, some may be sentient (if you're a sci fi nation), but there are certainly some that won't be, as I'll explain below. That causes significant problems as I will detail:

ARTICLE II. Automatic extention of ALL laws that grant so-called "human rights" to explicitly include the Artificially Intelligent (as established in ARTICLE I) citizens of NSUN member nations.
I sense problems:

Resolution #76, Good Samaritan Laws, Clause #3 mentions "intent". How can a non-sentient being have "intent"?

Many resolutions, including #69, The Sexes Rights Law, and #99, Discrimination Accord, mention "sex". How can a robot have a gender or sex?

If this was passed, we would be required under it and #8, Citizen Rule Required, to let AI units have a say in government. I shudder to think of a nonsentient being governing me...

ARTICLE III. While legislation dealing with the rights and freedoms may be easily expanded to include Artificially Intelligent Beings, the physical needs of the mechanical and the biological corpus differ greatly. While many NSUN Resolutions (Resolution #20, for example) declare proper Health Care a right of all people, it is necessary that "robotics techonologies" be recognized as the mechanical body's analogue to biological body's "medical techologies." As such, all Health Care resolutions (past and future) should be read as mandates to provide and fund research into maintenance of both the biological bodies of “humans” and the mechanical bodies of the Artificially Intelligent.
What about past tech nations?

APPENDIX: As stated in ARTICLE I of the present Resolution, a Turing Test will be used to determine Artificial Intelligence. Passing this test will grant the subject all Human Rights enjoyed by “human” citizens of NSUN member states. The test shall be as follows:

1. The prospective Artificially Intelligent Being and a Biological Human will be placed in isolated rooms.
2. A panel of impartial Judges, in the employ of the NSUN, will ask a series of 50 NSUN-approved questions of both parties, unaware of who occupies which room or by whom each answer is supplied.
3. Each party will answer the questions (in writing) with the goal of convincing the judges that he/she/it is Biological Human.
4. Judges will examine the answers and attempt to glean which of the two answers to each question was provided by the prospective Artificially Intelligent Being and which was provided by the Biological Human.
5. If the Judges are unable the distinguish the prospective Artificially Intelligent party’s answers from the Biological Human’s (that is, they mistake the prospective A.I.'s answer for the Human answer) on 20 or more questions the prospective Artificially Intelligent Being gains official NSUN recognition as “Artificially Intelligent” and is thereby subject all of the rights and protections laid out in this Resolution.
Here's how a nonsentient robot could get through the test:

1. Creator of robot finds test questions.
2. Creator of robot programs questions into robot with a few human-sounding answers each.
3. Robot passes at least 20 questions, and is declared "artificially intellegent".

Sorry, but I don't think this is workable, at least with the Turing Test part in it.

Respectfully,

Robert Bobson
Deputy Undersecretary of State
The N.R. of Ceorana

First off, we would like to thank the Representative from Ceorana for the excellent criticisms of this draft. We have much respect for your legacy within the NSUN.
Now, in response, we offer the following:
You are making a fundamental mistake that is represented by the quote above: intellegence (even as measured by the Turing Test) represents only mental capability, not the ability to make decisions or feel emotion.
In all honesty, this is an issue which we feel is not really the domain of NSUN legislation. As noted in the Preamble to this Resolution, the word "intelligence" is engaged "as an epithet of convenience and expedience only," meaning that it is a political/demographic label that makes no claims to ontological truth. It is meant to operate similarly to the racial signifier "black."
Are black people actually "black"? Almost never, and yet no one would argue that the label "black" even implies that a person's skin is actually the color "black." Similarly, Artificially Intelligent is a mere categorizational convenience and could just as easily be replaced by a term like Mechanical Citizen, just as "black" can be replaced by any number of other terms such as "African American" (whatever Africa and America are...)
Perhaps, we will make that change to the text of the draft now...

Resolution #76, Good Samaritan Laws, Clause #3 mentions "intent". How can a non-sentient being have "intent"?
We would like to respectfully inquire as to how one determines the "intent" of a human-performed task. Intent is not visible and thus must be inferred, even in human behavior. It does not seem unreasonable that non-biological beings could be held to the same standards.

Many resolutions, including #69, The Sexes Rights Law, and #99, Discrimination Accord, mention "sex". How can a robot have a gender or sex?

With great respect, we do not believe that this is a meaningful problem. Resolution #99 bans discrimination the basis of sex. If the being in question has no sex, it cannot be discriminated against on that basis. "Robots" are immune from sex discrimination and as such make their nation's compliance with Resolution #99 automatic. It is unclear to us why this is a problem any more than the fact that the Federation of Questionable Industries has no whales makes the prohibition of whaling (in Resolution #70) problematic. If we have missed your point, please rephrase your concern so that it may be addressed properly.

If this was passed, we would be required under it and #8, Citizen Rule Required, to let AI units have a say in government. I shudder to think of a nonsentient being governing me...
*This is a resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen on some level.*

It seems to us that in nations compliant with Resolution #8, it should only be possible to have "a non-sentient being" governing you should it be the will of the people. If the people wish to elect an A.I. Being, Resolution #8 supports their decision. If they do not want an A.I. Being in government, it seems that Resolution #8 protects them from that possibility. If Resolution #8 does neither of these things, then it is a toothless Resolution and your concern is thus nullified.

What about past tech nations?
Indeed, the same could be asked regarding the mandates of Resolution #20 as it currently stands. Are past-tech nations required to provide the same "comprehensive healthcare/prescription drug plan" as modern nations? What about nations that have no concept of "perscription drugs"? Naturally, the expectations for past tech nations will be different than those of more moder tech nations but this is the case with nearly every Resolution and should not be viewed as a problem specific to the currect Resolution.

1. Creator of robot finds test questions.
2. Creator of robot programs questions into robot with a few human-sounding answers each.
3. Robot passes at least 20 questions, and is declared "artificially intellegent".

Sorry, but I don't think this is workable, at least with the Turing Test part in it.

It seems that arguments that the system is vulnerable to this sort of corruption could be leveled against any Resolution and are generally answered by invoking the NSUN Administrative Gnomes. Duly wary of simply appealing to a convenient deus ex machina, is it not a reasonable assumption that the Turing Test would be tamper-proof in terms of question-security, bribery of Judges, etc... ?
That said, we understand your concern with the Test and are not totallly sold on its efficacy. Is The N.R. of Ceorana inherently opposed to any/all tests or are your concerns somewhat specific to the Test Proposed herein? We are actively considering other possible methods for qualifying a mechanical individual for the rights and duties accorded to humanity.

Thank you very much for your critiques and questions. We hope we were able to clarify. If there are issues that remain unclear, please do no hesitate to ask.

Wyldtree would be opposed to this proposal or anything like it. Artificial lifeforms are not even allowed without our borders.Nice to see backwards racism still runs rampant in the "enlightened" nations of the UN. And people wonder why the Hack told the UN to sod off years ago...

-Anesca PHALANX, Adminstrator of the Hack Neural Network
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

- - - - -


As for the references to the Turning Test, it would probably be best if it was left off. Makes things more difficult, but the test does reference a real person. I think the criticisms of the Turning Test are a little overinflated and often repeated by people without critical analysis, but that's neither here nor there.

Nice to see backwards racism still runs rampant in the "enlightened" nations of the UN. And people wonder why the Hack told the UN to sod off years ago...
You may call it that if you wish, but we love all the natural creatures and races of this world and others. Such a thing created by man will never be afforded the same rights as one created by our earth mother in Wyldtree. Other nations may consider them or toasters as equals if they wish, but mechanical parodies of life will never be allowed within Wyldtree. Were something like this to pass, I do believe we would be forced to reconsider our membership to the NSUN.

OOC: I'm reminded of the Matrix, when the machines didn't get rights they just killed everybody.

Your machiens can't do that, so why should we care? Ultimately speaking machines are machines, sentient or not your averae person just doen'st care, there all calcualtors and they all go in the trash next week when they become obsolete.

The present Proposal seeks to extend those Human Rights already enjoyed by biological humans to include the non-"human," Artificially Intelligent world citizens.

If your car has a computer installed, does that make the car sentient? Intelligence, which is defined by intellectual acuity and brainpower, does not equal sentience. Emotions do. Do AI, computers and robots have emotions? If not how can we regard them in any way except as equal to animals or objects?

OOC: I'm reminded of the Matrix, when the machines didn't get rights they just killed everybody.

OOC: That is probably the worst description of what happens in the Matrix I ever saw.

We have much respect for your legacy within the NSUN.
Ceorana is glad to have achieved a "legacy", but, being relatively new and not having submitted any good legislation, see little reason for it to exist. ;)

In all honesty, this is an issue which we feel is not really the domain of NSUN legislation. As noted in the Preamble to this Resolution, the word "intelligence" is engaged "as an epithet of convenience and expedience only," meaning that it is a political/demographic label that makes no claims to ontological truth. It is meant to operate similarly to the racial signifier "black."
Are black people actually "black"? Almost never, and yet no one would argue that the label "black" even implies that a person's skin is actually the color "black." Similarly, Artificially Intelligent is a mere categorizational convenience and could just as easily be replaced by a term like Mechanical Citizen, just as "black" can be replaced by any number of other terms such as "African American" (whatever Africa and America are...)
I don't have a problem with the use of the word "intellegence". I have a problem with this draft giving nonsentient beings the rights of sentient ones.

We would like to respectfully inquire as to how one determines the "intent" of a human-performed task. Intent is not visible and thus must be inferred, even in human behavior. It does not seem unreasonable that non-biological beings could be held to the same standards.
But part of the inferring of intent depends on the way the person acts before, while, and after the event. Since a nonsentient machine would always act with the utmost efficiency, it cannot have an "intent" -- and therefore one should not be inferred. After all, how do you infer something that isn't there?

With great respect, we do not believe that this is a meaningful problem. Resolution #99 bans discrimination the basis of sex. If the being in question has no sex, it cannot be discriminated against on that basis. "Robots" are immune from sex discrimination and as such make their nation's compliance with Resolution #99 automatic. It is unclear to us why this is a problem any more than the fact that the Federation of Questionable Industries has no whales makes the prohibition of whaling (in Resolution #70) problematic. If we have missed your point, please rephrase your concern so that it may be addressed properly.
Agreed.


*This is a resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen on some level.*

It seems to us that in nations compliant with Resolution #8, it should only be possible to have "a non-sentient being" governing you should it be the will of the people. If the people wish to elect an A.I. Being, Resolution #8 supports their decision. If they do not want an A.I. Being in government, it seems that Resolution #8 protects them from that possibility.
No, it doesn't. This resolution would give nonsentient beings the right to take part in their government, i.e. vote. Therefore, nonsentient beings could elect other nonsentient beings.

Another thing to consider is that since a nonsentient robot is controlled by its creator (or if it has random behavior, that leads to even worse problems), that essentially means that one could program a robot to pass the Turning Test and then program it to vote the creator's way. With a large army of voting robots, the person would have complete control over government.


Indeed, the same could be asked regarding the mandates of Resolution #20 as it currently stands. Are past-tech nations required to provide the same "comprehensive healthcare/prescription drug plan" as modern nations? What about nations that have no concept of "perscription drugs"? Naturally, the expectations for past tech nations will be different than those of more moder tech nations but this is the case with nearly every Resolution and should not be viewed as a problem specific to the currect Resolution.
Okay.


It seems that arguments that the system is vulnerable to this sort of corruption could be leveled against any Resolution and are generally answered by invoking the NSUN Administrative Gnomes. Duly wary of simply appealing to a convenient deus ex machina, is it not a reasonable assumption that the Turing Test would be tamper-proof in terms of question-security, bribery of Judges, etc... ?
Well, since questions have to be "NSUN Approved", surely the questions would have to be open for the NSUN to approve? Also, a person could theoretically program a robot with almost all possible questions available, perhaps compiling a list of questions that had already been asked through sending fake robots through that would record the questions...

That said, we understand your concern with the Test and are not totallly sold on its efficacy. Is The N.R. of Ceorana inherently opposed to any/all tests or are your concerns somewhat specific to the Test Proposed herein? We are actively considering other possible methods for qualifying a mechanical individual for the rights and duties accorded to humanity.
The Nordic Republic of Ceorana is not convinced (in fact, actively opposes) the notion that the Turning Test can show sentience. We will support rights for sentient beings of any type: robotic, biological, other. However, we want a foolproof way of making sure that said beings are sentient before we give them rights of a citizen.

Regards,

Robert Bobson, Deputy Undersecretary of State
The Nordic Republic of Ceorana

If your car has a computer installed, does that make the car sentient?Of course not. Don't be an idiot.

Do AI, computers and robots have emotions?Well, I do. I have a woman and a man that I love as a mother and a father. I am married and I have adopted a daughter; a wonderful little girl whose code was based on my own.

Thankfully, my nation is actually enlightened and has moved beyond the bias of... fluid exchange. It's depressing to see the replies of nations that seem to think they have some intrinsic superiority over electronic intelligences; even though they can't actually state what makes them superior. This is the same thing that leads people to enslaving people of a different skin tone. There's no real difference, but people who know nothing but hate will continue to find new outlets.

If not how can we regard them in any way except as equal to animals or objects?Nobody is asking you to give rights to your toaster. Please, try to actually read and think. You're supposed to be the sentient one, remember? If you're unable to grasp such simple concepts, maybe you should have your rights removed.

After all, even a non-sentient scanner can read.


-Anesca PHALANX, Adminstrator of the Hack Neural Network
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Your machiens can't do that, so why should we care? Ultimately speaking machines are machines, sentient or not your averae person just doen'st care, there all calcualtors and they all go in the trash next week when they become obsolete."I suppose that the rather poorly-designed carbon-based machine that is, erm... You, can be tossed into the next recycling-unit, then? Seeing as your CPU (You may call it a 'brain') seems to be somewhat substandard...

"See, if you could just install a spellchecker, this wouldn't happen, dear."

~ DD 05/12, while passing through

"I suppose that the rather poorly-designed carbon-based machine that is, erm... You, can be tossed into the next recycling-unit, then? Seeing as your CPU (You may call it a 'brain') seems to be somewhat substandard...

"See, if you could just install a spellchecker, this wouldn't happen, dear."

~ DD 05/12, while passing through
Inventing a quote I did not say. Hmph. I suppose I cannot expect more of you.

A very interesting conundrum indeed.

To test for any level of Intelligence to decide if it is deserving of "Human Rights" without making any assumptions about sentience is an almost impossible ordeal. (NOTE: ALMOST impossible)

I could argue that my home computer is cabable of phenomenal calculations, translating a myriad of languages current, dead, and imagined, and could be fairly easily programmed to respond to almost any situation as a human plausibly would. Will I grant it the rights that are granted to the rest of our populace? Certainly not. It is incapable of true Higher Reasoning. Whether you call it a soul, sentience, intelligence, or anything else, the differences come out as being near irrelevant. A robotic machine or technological wonder could be capable of "learning" through reprogramming or upgrading, but unless it has the power to independantly learn, adapt, grow, aspire, or any number of other things, I would be hard-pressed to call it worthy of the same rights that the rest of us are granted.

Forgive me for being a little scattered in my thoughts on this issue. Kivisto is still in its infancy as a Nation. We have as yet to make great use of robotics and, as such, I am speaking more from the heart than the head. It does occur to me though, that certain qualities such as the desire to exist and the resulting "fears" (as an example) are necessary to define something as having qualities worth protecting. There's more to it than that, but I'll try to leave the existentialism to the philosophers for the time being. I will confer with them before making any final decisions regarding this proposal in any case.

Aside from all of that, it seems that we should perhaps not blanket ALL of the "human" rights towards our robotic allies. Hear me out before the lynch mob breaks down my door screaming fascist monster at me. Simply that there are certain situations from which we protect our human populace because they are too hazardous to our frail bodies of flesh and sinew, however an individual of steel and hydraulics would be much better suited and a great deal safer in said environs.

By way of example, there are certain areas within Kivisto's uranium mines in which we will not send humans as a result of the radioactive and rather hazardous nature of the lode. So we use remotely controlled robotic arms to perform tasks in these situations. Obviously the arm would never pass any test for intelligence as it still requires human operation. However, the whole scenario could be rendered much easier and more efficient were we to use a rational, reasoning, Automated Individual who could enter the area, assess what needs to be done independantly, and perform the tasks in relative safety from hazards that would kill a human in moments. By granting them exactly the same rights as everyone else, I would be unable to ask this Individual to do that as it is classified as a practice too hazardous for a HUMAN to perform.

All in all, though, I agree with the basic premise that any being that can satisfy whatever criteria set forward to prove themselves an individual should be granted rightsd under the law. I simply feel that this proposal as is leaves a few loopholes and blankets a little more than I am comfortable with.

Thanks

Oskar Feldstein
Barcoding the Masters Babies

Inventing a quote I did not say. Hmph. I suppose I cannot expect more of you.
(Dancing Bananland did say that - he attributed the quote incorrectly.)

First, we encourage all Nations to peruse the newly updated text of the most current draft of the Resolution. There have been some serveral substantive changes in verbiage in order to clarify what seemed to be some points of common confusion. The Federation of Questionable Industries (on behalf of the region robots for technolotry and non-biological citizens worldwide) would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to offer constructive criticism of our Proposal.

To the Representative from Ceorana
Ceorana is glad to have achieved a "legacy", but, being relatively new and not having submitted any good legislation, see little reason for it to exist. ;)
Despite a relatively short tenure, we recall your past contributions to NSUN debates as being fair and insightful. If our compliment was over-zealous, we apologize but our gratitude for your excellent comments is sincere.

I don't have a problem with the use of the word "intellegence". I have a problem with this draft giving nonsentient beings the rights of sentient ones.
It is the opinon of the Federation of Questionable Industries that "sentience is as sentience does," if you will. That is, whether the Mechanical Citizen is sentient in a philosophical sense is of no import here. If the Mechanical Citizen is capable of acting like a human then there is no need to ask any further questions. Indeed, do we ask human Biological Citizens to prove their "sentience," "intelligence," "emotionality" or any of the like? We do not.
We expect only that humans will "act like humans" and if they do, they will be treated accordingly.
This Resolution does not ask for special accomodations to be made for Mechanical Citizens. It asks simply that Mechanical Citizens be granted the same opportunity to receive equal treatment for equal action. It is precisely the same as men expecting equal pay to women for equal labor done; a standard of equality not at all uncommon among enlightened nations.

But part of the inferring of intent depends on the way the person acts before, while, and after the event. Since a nonsentient machine would always act with the utmost efficiency, it cannot have an "intent" -- and therefore one should not be inferred.
Apologies, but we find it quite difficult to deal with concepts like "intent" in the abstract. We find it terribly confusing partially because it is not the level on which legislation operates. Legislation deals with judging actual events that occur in the world. For those of us who are less capable of dealing effectively in the abstract, indulge us by considering a concrete example directly from the text of Resolution #76. It invokes the concept of "intent" as follows:
CALLS UPON all nations to develop domestic “Good Samaritan” laws granting volunteer based first responder teams, including technical and engineering professionals, some immunity to civil liability associated with work and professional judgments made while rendering disaster assistance provided that they do not act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers

Consider the case of the leader of a medical team who, in the course of providing disaster assistance in a hurricane, enters the worst part of the storm and his team is killed. On what basis would "reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers" be established? One could ask if the team leader had access to information about the severity of the storm. One could ask if, though information was available, the leader failed to even consider the dangers. One could ask if, though the dangers were well known, the leader chose to ignore them and proceed nonetheless.

Answers to these questions all rely on observations of the leader's behavior and of the information available to him/her/it. The answers could all be reached fairly objectively. Was there information to suggest grave danger? Did the leader read this information? Did the leader heed it? The conclusions you reach in this case would be quite independent of whether the leader was black, female, mechanical, male, overweight, greedy, Catholic, etc... If the information of grave danger was there and the leader read it but ignored it, how does it matter whether he was biological or mechanical? The act clearly demonstrates "reckless and intentional disregard of known dangers."

Another thing to consider is that since a nonsentient robot is controlled by its creator (or if it has random behavior, that leads to even worse problems), that essentially means that one could program a robot to pass the Turning Test and then program it to vote the creator's way. With a large army of voting robots, the person would have complete control over government.
With all respect, is this not a matter of corruption that goes beyond the case of Mechanical Citizens? Could not any citizen be unlawfully compelled to vote for a certain interested party? If you investigate, you will find that there is NSUN legislation currently on the books that bans such corruption. As such, we feel that your scenario is not a legitimate objection to the present Resolution for two reasons. First, it is not a unique threat introduced by allowing Mechanical Citizens to vote. Indeed, this would point to a viable threat to the security of any election and possible grounds for repealing and redrafting Resolution #8 if not for the second point: brainwashing is already illegal and so any "mad scientist" who brainwashed the populace (mechanical or biological) into voting for her would be breaking international NSUN law.

The Nordic Republic of Ceorana is not convinced (in fact, actively opposes) the notion that the Turning Test can show sentience. We will support rights for sentient beings of any type: robotic, biological, other. However, we want a foolproof way of making sure that said beings are sentient before we give them rights of a citizen.

We wholeheartedly agree that there are a number of problems with engaging the Turing Test as presented in this Draft and are actively investigating superior alternatives. That said, we again respectfully urge you (and all other nations) to relegate philosophical speculation on such matters as sentience to the universities and temples and allow the NSUN to direct its attentions to those things that may be legislated. We cannot and have never been able to legislate based on abstract philosophical constructs. They are invisible, have no smell, no taste, no sound... We must legislate on things as they "seem to be." When the Universal Bill of Rights grants the "right to be treated equally under the law," do we philosophize endlessly about the possibility of two unique individuals ever being able to be truly "equal" in a metaphysical sense? No, we decide that the law has been broken if the treatment "seems to be" unequal.
The point is that NSUN legislation is no stranger to leaving the philosophical behind in favor of legislative expediency and we encourage the NSUN to continue that proud and pragmatic tradition when considering this Proposal.

Thank you graciously for your astute and probing questions. We truly appreciate it. Your suggestions have been incorporated in a number of the revisions already made to this Draft.

To the Representative from Kivisto
To test for any level of Intelligence to decide if it is deserving of "Human Rights" without making any assumptions about sentience is an almost impossible ordeal. (NOTE: ALMOST impossible)
This fact becomes ever more evident. Any assistance you could offer as we try to push that "almost" toward "not at all" would be greatly appreciated.

I could argue that my home computer is cabable of phenomenal calculations...Will I grant it the rights that are granted to the rest of our populace? Certainly not.
Agreed. Truly, the greatest difficulty in this legislation is dividing those Mechanical Citizens who are worthy of rights and responsibilities from those mechanical objects which are not. Balance in creating the distinction is important. Although, if considered honestly, the main threat to abuse of this definition seems to come from humans themselves. If the definition is too liberal, some unscrupulous person may attempt to claim his toaster, walkman, calculator, etc... deserve to vote (that this army of consumer electronics votes exactly like its owner is purely coincidental) or some lunatic activist may file a class action law suit on behalf of the world's billions of enslaved television sets. As with any law, it is a matter of defending against that one case in a thousand in which someone tried to take unfair advantage.

It does occur to me though, that certain qualities such as the desire to exist and the resulting "fears" (as an example) are necessary to define something as having qualities worth protecting.

This is a very compelling way of thinking about the problem and suggests some good alternatives to the ever-problematic Turing Test.

it seems that we should perhaps not blanket ALL of the "human" rights towards our robotic allies...there are certain situations from which we protect our human populace because they are too hazardous to our frail bodies of flesh and sinew, however an individual of steel and hydraulics would be much better suited and a great deal safer in said environs.
Another excellent point, particularly in light of ARTICLE III which already grants the salience of certain differences in the bodies of Mechanical Citizens.

there are certain areas within Kivisto's uranium mines in which we will not send humans as a result of the radioactive and rather hazardous nature of the lode... the whole scenario could be rendered much easier and more efficient were we to use a rational, reasoning, Automated Individual who could enter the area, assess what needs to be done independantly, and perform the tasks in relative safety from hazards that would kill a human in moments. By granting them exactly the same rights as everyone else, I would be unable to ask this Individual to do that as it is classified as a practice too hazardous for a HUMAN to perform.
The example you cite seems to reference the newly passed Workplace Safety Act, so let us analyze that legislation specifically.

(1)Each employer shall make every reasonable effort to furnish a place of employment which is free from hazards that could cause death or serious physical harm to his employees and inform employees as fully as possible of potential hazards.
(2)Workplaces must be maintained in such a condition that employees will not be exposed to excessive danger.

Addressing these two Articles as particularly relevant, Resolution #146 does not seem to grant equal working conditions to all employees. Rather, it attempts to protect each employee from harm. While dust may be fatal to an employee with a certain respiratory condition, it may be innocuous to another. The Resolution does not say that no employee may work where it is dusty but that if dust will cause harm to an employee, that employee should be informed of it and given protection against it. It seems that, since having a Mechanical Citizen investigate a highly radioactive site (as per your example), would not pose a "hazard" to nor expose the employee to "excessive danger," it would be perfectly legal to allow such working conditions under NSUN law.


I simply feel that this proposal as is leaves a few loopholes and blankets a little more than I am comfortable with.
We agree and with the beneficial input of nations like Kivisto, we will work to tailor this legislation more precisely to close loopholes and confine the reach of this Resolution.

Thank you

___________________________________________________________________________
Originally Posted by Dancing Bananland
OOC: I'm reminded of the Matrix, when the machines didn't get rights they just killed everybody.
___________________________________________________________________________
OOC: That is probably the worst description of what happens in the Matrix I ever saw.
___________________________________________________________________________

Well, thats what happened, the UN didn't regard the machines as human beings until it was to late, and they slaughtered everybody except those they put in the vats and the matrix, which I lumped in with being as good as dead.

OOC: I suggest you watch Animatrix. ;) [/threadjack]

On behalf of the region of robots for technolotry, The Federation of Questionable Industries is drafting the following Proposal to explicitly protect the rights of Mechanical Citizens. We encourage and welcome comments, criticisms and advice on this Draft.

Having not had time to read through the draft and provide any specific critique all I can say at this time is good luck, and if it reaches quorum have fun with all the national representatives which will immediately storm the thread indignantly refusing to grant voting rights to string puppets, or possibly to rock 'em sock 'em robots. I really can't predict what kind of idiocy this will provoke.

I really can't predict what kind of idiocy this will provoke.

Experience would suggest that you can... ;)

It is the opinon of the Federation of Questionable Industries that "sentience is as sentience does," if you will. That is, whether the Mechanical Citizen is sentient in a philosophical sense is of no import here. If the Mechanical Citizen is capable of acting like a human then there is no need to ask any further questions. Indeed, do we ask human Biological Citizens to prove their "sentience," "intelligence," "emotionality" or any of the like? We do not.
We expect only that humans will "act like humans" and if they do, they will be treated accordingly.

Humans automatically have sentience. It's not the same with robots.

With all respect, is this not a matter of corruption that goes beyond the case of Mechanical Citizens? Could not any citizen be unlawfully compelled to vote for a certain interested party? If you investigate, you will find that there is NSUN legislation currently on the books that bans such corruption. As such, we feel that your scenario is not a legitimate objection to the present Resolution for two reasons. First, it is not a unique threat introduced by allowing Mechanical Citizens to vote. Indeed, this would point to a viable threat to the security of any election and possible grounds for repealing and redrafting Resolution #8 if not for the second point: brainwashing is already illegal and so any "mad scientist" who brainwashed the populace (mechanical or biological) into voting for her would be breaking international NSUN law.
No. Mechanical Citizens can be completely and utterly controlled by another person. Humans are not.

We wholeheartedly agree that there are a number of problems with engaging the Turing Test as presented in this Draft and are actively investigating superior alternatives. That said, we again respectfully urge you (and all other nations) to relegate philosophical speculation on such matters as sentience to the universities and temples and allow the NSUN to direct its attentions to those things that may be legislated. We cannot and have never been able to legislate based on abstract philosophical constructs. They are invisible, have no smell, no taste, no sound... We must legislate on things as they "seem to be." When the Universal Bill of Rights grants the "right to be treated equally under the law," do we philosophize endlessly about the possibility of two unique individuals ever being able to be truly "equal" in a metaphysical sense? No, we decide that the law has been broken if the treatment "seems to be" unequal.
The point is that NSUN legislation is no stranger to leaving the philosophical behind in favor of legislative expediency and we encourage the NSUN to continue that proud and pragmatic tradition when considering this Proposal.

But legislation derives from philosophical differences, correct? We must understand and form a goal in the philosophical realm before we can venture into putting the philosophy into the language of legislation.

We appreciate the work of the representative from QuestionableIndustries.

R. Bobson
Deputy Undersecretary of State, NRC

Human Rights of Mechanical Citizens
I would seek a new title. "Human" seems kind of misplaced. "Human", in human rights refers to the being that is intrinsically afforded these rights (by the nature of it being human). A.Is are not human (even if they are similar), and the premise of granting them rights is that they display sentiency similar to humans, not that they are human. Thus, I think the title should be changed.

To the Representative from Kivisto

The example you cite seems to reference the newly passed Workplace Safety Act, so let us analyze that legislation specifically.

(1)Each employer shall make every reasonable effort to furnish a place of employment which is free from hazards that could cause death or serious physical harm to his employees and inform employees as fully as possible of potential hazards.
(2)Workplaces must be maintained in such a condition that employees will not be exposed to excessive danger.

Addressing these two Articles as particularly relevant, Resolution #146 does not seem to grant equal working conditions to all employees. Rather, it attempts to protect each employee from harm. While dust may be fatal to an employee with a certain respiratory condition, it may be innocuous to another. The Resolution does not say that no employee may work where it is dusty but that if dust will cause harm to an employee, that employee should be informed of it and given protection against it. It seems that, since having a Mechanical Citizen investigate a highly radioactive site (as per your example), would not pose a "hazard" to nor expose the employee to "excessive danger," it would be perfectly legal to allow such working conditions under NSUN law.
Thank you

I thank you for that clarification.