Saw this question on the back of a bus this morning, an advert for the University of Canterbury, and it is an interesting question. We are just about at the stage now, technologically speaking, that we may need to start asking this.
First I suppose we have to decide what a robot is. If it's just a machine that does what we tell it is it a robot? Yes, I think so. So do you consider your answering machine a robot? How could it possibly be "equal" to you; it's like comparing two entirely different organisms. Or do we define robot as something that is capable of "thinking" for itself or has a humanoid form, the sort of sci-fi definition that brings to mind Hal or The Terminator?
And what do we mean by equal? Equal in law I guess the question means, because many robots are in fact already superior to us in strength, speed and cognitive ability. Should a robot have legal rights, for example not to be wantonly destroyed when superseded?
And what about APs - Artificial People - genetically enhanced human beings like those hunted by Deckard in Bladerunner? Read Robert Heinlein's "Friday" (which oddly enough starts off in Christchurch) or Paolo Bacigallupi's The Wind-up girl, for versions of the AP theme. Not "natural" in the sense of created by genetic serendipity; not really human, but not non-human either, rather super-human, which makes them threatening to the ordinary average humans around them..
What kind of moral obligation does the creator of these entities have towards these creations, if any? This question was probably first articulated by Mary Shelley in "Frankenstein"; the monster is not inherently evil but becomes evil after rejection by his creator and human society.
No doubt a philosoper could sort out some answers. Or would s/he just come up with more questions?
No comments:
Post a Comment