Robot and android rights

Chances are that future bots will have safeguards and backups with redundant passwords before gaining access, but in the off chance that doesn't slow him (or her) down enough to be caught, would a hacker really want a robot killer rather than using it for thievery or implementing other illegal activities such as using spying apps or framing the owner?

Arti have you ever been out side of the country? Have you ever seen the poverty in other countries? Poverty can bread hate and despair towards those who have things that you don’t if you live in a poor country. Or how a twisted mind can twist the Koran to make you think that it’s ok to kill everyone in another country and that you would go to heaven for it.
Have you forgotten 911?
Have you forgotten the black outs of the northeast power grid?
Have you forgotten the bombing in Okalahoma?

Why do you thing this Government of ours and other Governments are so worried about the up and coming cell phone viruses?

A terrorist only goal is to kill the infidel and it’s not just the older generation, it’s the younger generation as well that are go to college and learning computer programming.

If you would like to read the Koran in English here’s a link and if you find the part were is says it’s ok to kill millions of people so that you can go to heaven let me know.

Koran English Translation

Candy Apple would have a lot more to say on this topic than I. As long as humanity sees androids as machines only android rights will never become a reality. Humanity will never accept artifical life if it means giving up their android slaves.

I'll ressurect this post:

1st :
I didn't understand one of the rights in the first statemant of this thread: You say AI to have the right to make bounds ( human robot, robot robot)... but at the same time you say that AI will not be able to have properties? Imagine the situation. I'll use the example of the possibility of existence of Chii and Hideki, ok?
Chii and Hideki live together: Hideki dies, Chii would not inherit the things they bought and built together?
She would turn a lot of junk?
Future true AI need to have properties rights too.

2nd:
Any today's AI is just a series of repetitions of what human master said. Just like a parrot. This program language is called AIML, so Arti, I don't believe a computer could really pass Truring test in Turing's conditions in the current state of AI.
IF a current AI show some intelligence is just because it's programer had put a nice sentence in it's memory and it corresponded to one keyword existent in the sentence you typed to the machine...

3 rd:
Another point scaped me. Arti, you said Japan and other countries made laws...
Laws about AI rights?
Can you send me the link of such laws?

4th: Interesting subject!

No wonder why some AI researchers and I believe even extra credits (in their singularity video. I think.) Support NOT using the three laws, due to the fact that every situation cannot be summed up in a way that the three or even the four laws allow.
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-singularity

Video speaks a little too fast for a non native english speaker...

Gilda wrote:I'll ressurect this post:

1st :
I didn't understand one of the rights in the first statemant of this thread: You say AI to have the right to make bounds ( human robot, robot robot)... but at the same time you say that AI will not be able to have properties? Imagine the situation. I'll use the example of the possibility of existence of Chii and Hideki, ok?
Chii and Hideki live together: Hideki dies, Chii would not inherit the things they bought and built together?
She would turn a lot of junk?
Future true AI need to have properties rights too.

2nd:
Any today's AI is just a series of repetitions of what human master said. Just like a parrot. This program language is called AIML, so Arti, I don't believe a computer could really pass Truring test in Turing's conditions in the current state of AI.
IF a current AI show some intelligence is just because it's programer had put a nice sentence in it's memory and it corresponded to one keyword existent in the sentence you typed to the machine...

3 rd:
Another point scaped me. Arti, you said Japan and other countries made laws...
Laws about AI rights?
Can you send me the link of such laws?

4th: Interesting subject!

I don't understand what you mean.
What I'm saying is a robot should be allowed to bond with whomever it wants and associate with others without being persecuted or looked down on.
No robot should be considered property without a desire to be owned.

I meant future machines, not current ones.

Wikipedia may have something about it (links to more resources).

Arti wrote:The government has been taking away our rights since the 20s (see MK-Ultra and related links).
If established, robotic rights is the one thing they won't be able to take away.

Although a Terminator scenario does seem likely, the way the movie goes about it is exaggerated.

Why is it Nixon couldn't get away with secret recordings, but George W. Bush can put an illegal tap on everybody's phone, do regular Internet search sweeps, allow keylogger E-mail readings, condone or encourage required RFID tags in schools, and authorize invasion of privacy with cameras, spycams, microphones. and infrared devices?

All this is coming true with the help of, in my opinion, some unconstitutional bills.
The government will soon be authorized to do regular terrorist searches from spy satellites on foreign lands and American citizens.
This includes infrared technology that can see through houses and apartments violating the right to privacy.

Discoman wrote:i would agree with RFID tags in schools
how easy would attendance be then?
just have a scanner in the doorway, and it records the student as arriving on time or as late
if my school had offered that at only that extent, i would have gone for it. now tracking my movments i would not like, but saying they could would discourage the drug users and people having sex around campus

honestly, about terminator, and using an analogy, why would your toaster want to plot against you even if you do abuse its handle during breakfast?

just use the tree laws to prevent intentional injuries to humans in robots intelligent enough to recognize a human.
with industrial robots, no need to bother with that-just don't get in the way of the machine when it's running
just like any dangerous tool, common sense laws apply
but here's the question with no injuries to humans-if a robot witnesses somebody being shot at, what does it do?
a human can shoot and kill if they are in danger.
can a robot kill the threat to another human?
but what about a robot in the military?
should it defend the shooter on our side, or defend the person in danger, say a terrorist?

situations like these may be why we have no robot rights, and why AI is feared and not understood.

I wouldn't even joke about required RFID.
It's coming soon (can be eaten in food), and in places it's already here (in flue shots the parent is forced to consent to even if the child does not).

What if the toaster had no choice but to follow it's programming?

Robots are too literal minded, and must have laws written carefully.

Have you ever used any of those things you discuss?
Thermal vision can't see through single sheets of ordinary glass (which is why their lenses are made of really exotic mixtures.)

See through a house? Not without some major advances that will allow heat spectrum infrared to go through physical objects. As long as physics still works, you won't see through houses or apartments without some very expensive gear. Yes, some heat will show. But thanks to things like insulation in all modern houses, you won't be able to see anything. You might be able to see if the heating or a/c is on, unless they have higher r factor insulation.

Rid tags? You can't even scan an imbedded tag (sub dermal) without having the reader pressed against the skin directly over the chip. The chip simply does not have the ability to broadcast farther than that. If someone ate a chip, it would do nothing. However, if the chip wasn't in something totally resistant to the acids, your stomach would destroy it.

Sorry mate, but those overlord things you hear about aren't possible. I wasn't joking about the robot with the terrorist vs soldier. Who gets protected if two people are shooting at each other? A rigid set of laws doesn't allow for changing understanding or complex situations. As in, rigid laws don't work in the real world. In a lab where everything is controlled, laws work. The real world isn't a climate and environment controlled lab.