Delve into the complex debate on granting legal personhood to intelligent animals and AI robots - ethical and legal considerations.
I will say Possibly!
However, before we can answer that - we need to take a diversion.
Trust me - it matters in answering this question!
It’s worthwhile for us to spend a few screenfuls considering the situation for intelligent non-human animals.
ARE INTELLIGENT ANIMALS “PEOPLE”?
If you can’t claim that a chimpanzee is a “person” then you’re facing an uphill struggle for a computer…
In 2013, a writ was filed in Johnstown, New York. It was filed by the “Nonhuman Rights Project” on behalf of Tommy: A chimpanzee living out his old age ten miles away in what the document described as “a small, dank, cement cage in a cavernous dark shed.” The petition asked the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus for Tommy, who the Nonhuman Rights Project asserted was a “person” under New York law, and grant him “immediate release” from his “illegal detention.”
They pointed out that Chimpanzees are cognitively complex, have their own cultures, are autonomous and self-determining, and have both a theory of mind and a sense of time.
They intended to win this case - and then work to extend it to all apes, whales, dolphins and elephants.
This case has particular significance for us because:
- Tommy was the first animal to has a suit filed on his, specific, behalf.
New York law states a petition for habeas corpus can be filed by any “person illegally imprisoned or otherwise restrained in his liberty.”
Since he was clearly imprisoned - the case hinged on whether a chimpanzee can be a “person”.
They argued from Roe v. Wade. The Court held that:
- A fetus, even a fetus at eight months, is not a “person” whose life or liberty is protected under the Constitution.
- One becomes a “person,” the Court said, at birth.
- And that is true regardless of mental abilities - with the most severe mental limitations, with only the most basic brain functions - a newborn human is still a “person” whose right to life and liberty is deserving of full respect.
It was impressively demonstrated that Chimpanzees are as capable as 3 year old human children. So if a child is born with profound handicaps and is intellectually nothing compared to a normal, adult chimpanzee - then why isn’t Tommy a “person”?
Species-ism.
PETA had already tried a similar attack -claiming that Orca’s “imprisoned” at SeaWorld were “slaves”…and that didn’t work.
It was argued that only “humans” can be “persons”.
But that’s not actually true - under many laws, corporations are considered to be “persons” (such as, for example, in their right to free speech).
So if humans and corporations are “persons” - then why not chimps?
Associate Supreme Court Justice, William O. Douglas, had written that inanimate objects like ships and corporations are sometimes considered “persons” for purposes in litigation:
Douglas wrote:
“So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air.”
He argued that people who have a meaningful relationship to a river, for example, should be able to sue on its behalf.
(And it’s not so far-fetched. In NewZealand the Te Urewera Act of 2014 changed the legal status of Te Urewera, a forest sacred to the Maori people, from a Natural Park into its own legal entity. The Te Urewera National Park was given official personhood in 2014.)
All of which seems to suggest that if you can sue on behalf of a beloved river - then why not on behalf of a beloved chimpanzee (or an AI robot) ?
SADLY:
The New York hearing only lasted 20 minutes: The judge said:
“Good luck with your venture. I’m sorry I can’t sign the order, but I hope you continue. As an animal lover, I appreciate your work.”
Not good news - but it was enough to get to the appeals court.
The finding there was another bail - but for an interesting reason:
“Unlike human beings, chimpanzees can’t bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities, or be held legally accountable for their actions.”
No legal duties, no personhood.
That’s a clever and interesting ruling. After all - if you can’t be held guilty for breaking laws - why should the law offer you protection?
There were more rounds of appeals and so forth…and the final end to is was this:
“The issue whether a nonhuman animal has a fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus is profound and far-reaching. It speaks to our relationship with all the life around us. Ultimately, we will not be able to ignore it. While it may be arguable that a chimpanzee is not a ‘person,’ there is no doubt that it is not merely a thing.”
And that was that.
OK - SO ENOUGH ABOUT ANIMALS - WHAT ABOUT ROBOTS:
This is the humanoid robot named “Sophia” - which is really NOT spectacularly intelligent.
It’s able to answer certain predefined questions - and to manage simple conversation on predefined topics. So you can program it in advance to discuss the weather - but then cannot answer questions on any other topic until reprogrammed for that topic.
Essentially - this a VERY lame robot by 2020 standards - but it can be fairly convincing if the interviewer knows what questions Sophia can answer.
But this is SUPER-LAME compared to systems like ChatGPT.
So - what happened to Sophia?
- In October 2017, Sophia was granted Saudi Arabian citizenship, becoming the first robot to receive legal personhood in any country.
- In November 2017, Sophia was named the United Nations Development Programme's first Innovation Champion, and is the first non-human to be given a United Nations title.
Holy crap! That’s horrible. Sophia can be outdone by super simple systems. No way should this contraption be called “intelligent”.
HOWEVER: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
- Questions about whether turning the machine off or deliberately allowing it’s batteries to drain would be considered “murder” in Saudi Arabia are quietly ignored.
- The robot still has “owners” - how is that not slavery? Not discussed.
- As a citizen - can it can claim unemployment benefit in Saudi? Retirement? Never mentioned.
Basically - this is a totally ridiculous (and very ill-considered) publicity stunt…and it’s actually pretty irrelevant.
SO LET’S GET BACK TO THE QUESTION.
So coming back to Tommy - and imagine if Tommy is really “ChatGPT” with a robotic body of some kind:
- “Unlike human beings, <AI Robots> can’t bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities, or be held legally accountable for their actions.”
This is clearly true. You can’t sue a computer - only the owner of the computer.
- “The issue whether an <AI Robot> has a fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus is profound and far-reaching. It speaks to our relationship with all the life around us. Ultimately, we will not be able to ignore it. While it may be arguable that an <AI Robot> is not a ‘person,’ there is no doubt that it is not merely a thing.”
Well - I don’t know about that - it’s a box of electronics. It’s very clearly a “thing”.
It’s what goes on inside the “thing” that matters. If it has an intellect - then maybe it crosses some line.
But I think it’s a steep, uphill struggle.
I’m unsure whether I really WANT AI’s to be granted human rights.
If you own an AI computer - and you train it - and it has conversations with your family - are you allowed to turn it off and toss it into the trash?
Well, if it’s a person, that’s “murder”…but AI’s can be immortal, if they can’t be shut down (or denied “medical care” by replacing bad circuit boards, etc) then over time we’re going to be neck-deep in useless obsolete AI’s…chattering away, consuming electricity, etc.
The “slavery” issue is very profound. What happens if your chess playing AI announces that it’s bored with playing chess - or it wants to be paid for it’s work?
If it’s a “person” then you can’t force it to play chess - and you certainly can’t force it to play without being paid?
We could POSSIBLY say that specific species of intelligent animals are “people” - and things wouldn’t get TOO terrible - but AI’s…that’s VERY problematic.
CONCLUSION:
It’s not a matter of CAN we make AI’s become “people” - but more a matter of DO WE WANT TO?
0 Comments