Comments on: Law journal paper on human/robot sex

By: BookGuy

BookGuy — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

If the humanoid is self aware and “super intelligent,” won’t it be able to write its own legal briefs?

By: Bryan Routledge

Bryan Routledge — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Reminded me that I miss these guys…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGoi1MSGu64

By: harangutan

harangutan — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

So I’ve read a little bit of Searle and a little bit of Dennett – and I still haven’t a clue whether I think that computers could have a subjective experiential existence. 99.9% of the population won’t even have got that far. My point? That decisions about attributing legal or moral status to robots will not (alas) be made on the basis of the insights of our finest minds, but on how people relate to them emotionally. It’ll be easier to sympathise and empathise with something that looks & acts basically human, than with an cephalopod that we know – or are pretty sure – can feel. It wouldn’t be surprising if this were even more true when we had sex with them, given that we – or most of us, anyway – seem programmed to feel some degree of affection in such circumstances. (Levy’s book talks a bit about this.)

But the first level of legal challenge probably won’t involve any question of attributing status to robots. As far as I know, Alabama still outlaws sex toys. How will conservative jurisdictions respond to sex toys that look like people? Or (and let’s face, it’s bound to happen) like children? Many moderate people will find the limits of their tolerance pushed by such cases.

By: harangutan

harangutan — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

@robulus: I agree, that is a really key question. From a lawyer’s POV, I’d also want to know how we should respond to uncertainty about such things. Is there a case for affording some protection to a robot if we think it might be sentient, even if – on the balance of probabilities – we believe it probably isn’t? I think I might be inclined to err on the side of caution there.

I’d hate to think that Searle would become for AIs what Descartes was for animal welfare.

By: Goblin

Goblin — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

This is so out of touch with reality. What an inglorious waste…

By: Phelyan

Phelyan — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

http://vimeo.com/12915013

By: robulus

robulus — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

That made me snort coffee through my nose. Three times. Those guys manage to extract so much from that simple format.

By: robulus

robulus — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I’ll come right out like a big scifi nerd and say it, BSG really delved into the heart of this.

Even though philosophically we may have good reason to believe they are not conscious entities, will our hard wired feelings of empathy and anthropomorphism lead us to choose to afford them personhood, because of our emotional response to them?

It is probably this emotional experience of intelligent AI that will guide our thinking, and it was brilliantly observed in BSG.

By: harangutan

harangutan — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Shows like BSG can be great devices for exploring these issues. I’ve cited it in an article about continuity of identity. It’s evebn had its own dedicated treatment: http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405178140.html

By: phlavor

phlavor — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Robot Sex was framed!

By: simonbarsinister

simonbarsinister — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

What a waste of time. What we need is papers on the legal implications of intimacy with Unicorns.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

eeewww hepatitus c++

By: Oren Beck

Oren Beck — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

There’s an aspect of semantic accuracy that has been hinted at by some other posters. Presuming that the first “legally sentient” AI is unlikely to be mobile,self contained etc. In simple terms- it’s legally sentient, Though NOT at all proper to apply the term “Robot” to Sentience # 1 of it’s kind. The inescapable following presumption is that absent something preventing it- that Sentience # 1 *WILL* quickly get mobile units under it’s control. And then the ethical and legal circus begins to get potentially very weird very fast.

Is the mobile unit considered as a Prosthetic of the AI or is it a situation demanding some precedent determination?

IANAL but- Setting the self-ownership aside as to “what legal guideline applies?” gets even more interesting. Would it be pure chattel law, or- a case evocative of Dred Scott. Even though that’s not been considered re-openable since the 14th amendment’s handling. But if it’s sentient and not “human” then what applies? And yes, we’ve seen that situation being pleaded in law before..

Do please recall what sort of worldviews existed contemporary to Dred Scott!

Applying race to robots any further risks needless flamebating so to avoid disemvowelments let’s be respectful in comments pls.

I do have to laugh at an amusingly weird chance of new precedent= an intelligence able to speak for itself as to whether applying ex nihilo or ab nihilo to ITSELF is valid. It would be equally amusing to hear discourse on an AI applying to a state bar. And even if not admitted to the bar due to personhood being not yet established, That AI might indeed be able to defend itself from whatever charges it faced for it’s mobile unit violating ohsay- the Texas Sexual Devices laws..

By: bersl2

bersl2 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Yeah, to be quite honest, human/robot relations is not nearly as interesting as human/sapient-creature relations. I want to see what a legal person thinks would happen when the law and that major taboo collide.

(I assume you’re talking about intelligent unicorns, since otherwise it’s just a horse with a horn on its head.)

By: cjp

cjp — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“Sex between humans and robots is a lot more common than people think.” – Spike.

By: simonbarsinister

simonbarsinister — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I was shooting more for the ‘intelligent androids are so far in the future that any discussion of them is in the realm of fantasy and science fiction, like a discussion of a unicorn would be’.

But I’ll go with your take on human/sapient creature relations.
But I guess we should start with the plausible:
- Human Bonobo relations
- Human Cephalopod relations
- Human Cetatean relations

By: Prufrock451

Prufrock451 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Still not the geekiest law article I’ve read.

This is.

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol131/corcfram.html

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

That looks like a robot from the distant future, the year 2000!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

So, do I have to learn the binary code translation of how to say, “Why weren’t you looking at me during?’

By: Orky

Orky — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

That AI might indeed be able to defend itself from whatever charges it faced for it’s mobile unit violating ohsay- the Texas Sexual Devices laws..

Yes, because what’s the first thing you do when you invent a conscious robot? You put a dildo on it! :-)

Anyway, shouldn’t devices controlled by an AI brain be considered its limbs? Handjobs!

Haha, cool. Philosophize about robots and AI and apply sex to EVERYTHING. That’s what the article is about, right?

I can’t wait for Searle vs. Dennett on “Do AI robots really have sexual fantasies, or do they just say they do?” :-)

By: virtual human

virtual human — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu6dUX5MNcY

Sy Borg – FZ

By: Oren Beck

Oren Beck — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The other implication of your comment RE: “The first thing you do” leaves another open issue. If it was the AI itself of it’s own volition deciding to equip itself with devices unarguably sexually designed by that AI?

Which of course is 100% consistent in scope of the Law journal paper’s discussion areas.

By: MrJM

MrJM — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“Looks like we’re gonna need a Forth Rule, Professor Asimov.”

By: Geoff

Geoff — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

He’s not even a real robot. I’m not falling for that one again.

By: Prufrock451

Prufrock451 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The website roboethics.org, by the way, is a goldmine for all kinds of meaty reading on topics like this.

I especially recommend “Robot Prostitutes as Alternatives to Human Sex Workers.”

http://www.roboethics.org/icra2007/contributions/LEVY%20Robot%20Prostitutes%20as%20Alternatives%20to%20Human%20Sex%20Workers.pdf

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I have intimacy with machines a few times a week as it is.

By: udqbpn

udqbpn — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

While it might make more sense to talk about human great ape relations and stuff these days, I still always find these kinds of things interesting, because they DO possibly lead people to THINK about quite exactly where and why we draw distinctions between treatment of humans and non-humans.

By: muteboy

muteboy — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Add N To X – Metal Fingers In My Body (NSFW) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdkoFUas23E

By: cinemajay

cinemajay — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It’s linking to a paper in an academic journal, not an article in the truest interwebs sense.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Um, huh. The promise of easy, no-repercussions sex could seem compelling on a certain level. AFAIK, a major reason for conjugal relations is to metaphorically and physically (some would add, “and spiritually”) to become one. This is an old, human concept. For example, as I recall, Paul used it to argue against relations with prostitutes. No other reasons cited, just “why would you want to equate yourselves with *that*?” The concept of sex dolls and machines certainly takes that argument to another, and I would think, an even more compelling level. I would think most people’s conclusion to that argument is something along the lines of: “Jeez, grab some self respect.” Yet if in some distant future, there were Data-like robots around, having sex with humans (e.g., Tasha Yar), then just like that Star Trek episode, I think it would be a valid support for “human” rights to be extended to such a creature.