While researching the topic, a 2017 article from the Guardian argues against robot rights calling it dangerous for society. The author of the article Paul Griseri argues, “Electronic personhood will protect the interests of a few, at the expense of the many. As soon as rules of robotic personhood are published, the creators of AI devices will “adjust” their machines to take the fullest advantage of this opportunity – not because these people are evil but because that is part of the logic of any commercial activity.” The article showcases the opposition for those that might have concerns of giving such rights to humanoids robots. Some have concern that giving robots rights can be dangerous for humanity as some express fears that these humanoid robots could pose threats and hurt humans. These are valid questions considering one should consider as to who will be held responsible if a robot does manage to hurt a human. Should the company that created the humanoid robot be held responsible or should the humanoid itself, be responsible for causing such damage. This article is what initially started the interest into considering a controversial question of whether robots that are made by humans deserve any rights, also diving into the notion of whether they should be given those and who will be the one to decide those. There are many factors that one could consider when going into this sort of issue. One important distinction to make while discussing the topic is differentiating between humanoid robots and just regular robotic robots. One of those distinctions based in the information from the many articles that have been looked over is having a sense of conciseness or the ability to think for itself. A humanoid robot is a bit more advanced in that it does not require a human to be there or require it to make commands for them to perform a task. A task such as taking out the trash or washing dishes.
0 Comments
The topic that will be discussed is privacy and giant tech corporation Facebook. One of the interesting points about this topic is that I had a discussion in another course a couple years back on this particular issue. One point that was made which I found to be very interesting was that my professor pointed out that Facebook’s terms of service is longer than the United States Constitution and that in opinion is why many of the users that login daily don’t know the amount of privacy they are giving up. I really doubt that many will take the time to read the entire U.S. Constitution let alone an entire terms of service that is much longer. This is where the problem lies as we then are not aware of much of the privacy that is being given up and what is being done with that information. A 2016 article that was written about this topic by Julia Angwin, Terry Paris jr, and Surya Mattu found that Facebook will also not inform you of releasing this information to third parties. The article finds, “When asked this week about the lack of disclosure, Facebook responded that it doesn't tell users about the third-party data because it's widely available and was not collected by Facebook.” I found this interesting, but not surprising for many reasons one being that many will not take the time to understand what exactly is being sent to these third parties which are being given the information.
This begs the question whether or not we the users for the site should take responsibility in demanding the answers to these big tech corporations and one should keep in mind that Facebook is not the only site that gets our information. Many sites you visit are always gathering some sort of information and you might not even realize it, occasionally you will visit a site and you will see a disclaimer on the bottom of a site which will inform you that the site is using web cookies to track your information for a “better user experience”. The cookies are meant to track the visitor of the site and gather what that visitor is doing on the particular site and then they would advertise that particular brand to the visitor. Many times though these are visible, the visitor of the site will not pay attention and will continue using the site. Depending on who you talk to one could argue that it does not bother them that their information is being taken from them others, however will be alarmed by the news. Again, we as the user or visitor of the site must be aware of what we are giving up, granted mostly if not all sites you visit are bound gather some sort of information, but to know where the information is going is important to understand. I feel that this is an ongoing issue that will surely be discussed as time goes on. What is intersting for me is how many users go on the comment sections of blog assignments and many of the comments that you see are with many individuals are insulting one another. This is an issue on our society today and is an issue that must be adressed right now. We have seen the hateful rhetoric especially during these political times, especially with the current administration and has caused many in our society to discuss in such ill-manner.
It is also more dangerous with terrorist groups that recruit other individuals having them follow in their path to creating hostile and dangerous environments for others in society. Action is necessary that this will not spread and the message of hate will not continue to obstruct the lives of everyday citizens. One thing for sure in regards to online hate speech is that it takes away from other sites that like to consist of dialogue about a particular issue, instead creating an uncomfortable environment for those looking to conduct themselves in a civil manner. Tech companies must find a method to not give these hate groups a platform for them to spread their message and influence others with the same ideology. One way these tech companies will combat the issue is, “The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.” This approach is to hopefully make it much more difficult for online hate speech to make its way around other sites for those that could be potentially targeted. The issue also begs another question which is the lack of empathy from online users that are spreading messages of hate. The fact the so much online hate speech is becoming an issue is quite frankly startling especially when you go on sites such as YouTube or Facebook and read the comments and wonder why so many individuals can contain so much hate inside themselves. One could argue that the giant tech companies should not have to go and monitor every comment that does not fit within their guideline, but the other side can argue that the tech company is giving a platform to the induvial that is making these comments which can have a negative impact on the individual that is being targeted by the hateful rhetoric. Much can be debated about this, but one thing for sure is there is a problem with online hate speech and it is a good thing for the giant tech companies to find a solution to the problem. Over the past couple of months my topic has been in relation to whether humanoid robots should be given the rights that we as human possess. If you were to go out in the street and ask this simple question many would not know how to respond to such a question, especially those who are not familiar with humanoid robots and the tests that are currently being done. Those are familiar with such a topic would have a list of pros and cons of giving the humanoid robots such rights. It can be quite a heated topic for some passionate about the topic and it is one our government will soon be being having with each other. I have researched over the past couple of weeks’ articles that praise giving humanoid robots rights and the cons to giving the humanoid robots rights.
It is a topic I am sure that many will be concerned about, for one how would you categorize what qualifies a humanoid robot as being considered a human? A 2016 article written by Peter Dockrill discusses why robots should be given rights. Dockrill talks from the viewpoint of professor Marcus Du Sautoy from Harvard University. Du Sautoy states, “It's getting to a point where we might be able to say this thing has a sense of itself, and maybe there is a threshold moment where suddenly this consciousness emerges," du Sautoy told media at the Hays Festival in Hay-on-Wye, Wales this week. "And if we understand these things are having a level of consciousness, we might well have to introduce rights. It's an exciting time." I find this to be fascinating for many reasons one of them being that I would never would have thought of that being the way to define how a humanoid robot should be given human rights. Much has been said about this topic and this is an interesting way to go about it. Another statement that stuck to me was when Dockrill states, “While the notion of a machine being protected by human rights sounds like something out of science fiction, it's actually a fast-approaching possibility that scientists have speculated about for decades. The big question remains, when will computer systems become so advanced that their artificial consciousness ought to be recognised and respected?” We are indeed going to be facing the issue at one point or another and we must be fast at work in coming up with guidelines to combat the issue before it becomes one in our country. Are robots and our privacy a concern? An article that I found while researching the topic is what got me interested in discussing such a topic.
This begs the question whether or not we the users for the site should take responsibility in demanding the answers to these big tech corporations and one should keep in mind that Facebook is not the only site that gets our information. Many sites you visit are always gathering some sort of information and you might not even realize it, occasionally you will visit a site and you will see a disclaimer on the bottom of a site which will inform you that the site is using web cookies to track your information for a “better user experience”. The cookies are meant to track the visitor of the site and gather what that visitor is doing on the particular site and then they would advertise that particular brand to the visitor. Many times though these are visible, the visitor of the site will not pay attention and will continue using the site. Depending on who you talk to one could argue that it does not bother them that their information is being taken from them others, however will be alarmed by the news. Again, we as the user or visitor of the site must be aware of what we are giving up, granted mostly if not all sites you visit are bound gather some sort of information, but to know where the information is going is important to understand. I feel that this is an ongoing issue that will surely be discussed as time goes on. I can only wish that in the coming years that necessary steps will be taken in order to secure the notion that ou privacy is not at stake and we will not be harmed in the near future. Many of the tech companies such as Facebook and Amazon must ensure the users of their products that their safety will not be threatened in the coming years as the way they conduct themselves with their technology and how we use it hurts us. The question that has been posed over the past couple of weeks is whether or not Artificial intelligence humanoid robots deserve the same human rights as we all possess. There are some that do not feel that they do and fear that if these AI robots are given rights they might abuse the power and could us as a society in the long run. For me the past months have been very interesting because I had no prior knowledge to this topic and have been more as each week passes by. I have had to consider what will life be for these robots if they are given the same rights, some are worried for one that these robots are going to take away many jobs over the coming weeks. What I was more interested in was when the topic was making headlines in the mainstream media. One article that I found was a 2011 Forbes article. The topic is like many of the articles written in the past which give insight into how should our country specifically approach the issue at hand when it becomes more apparent. The author of the article states “I think this both poses some interesting questions but also illustrates some of the inherent absurdities of the very concept of general artificial intelligence that is sentient poses. The thing about an artificial intelligence, presuming that it's computer-based, is that at some level, it's inherently going to be programmed. In Isaac Asimov's robot stories, every robot was equipped with the "Three Laws of Robots" -- safeguards that, in theory, meant that intelligent robots wouldn't harm humans and would obey them.” Very interesting to think about the issue from this perspective. Also, there are issues that will come about from trusting robots that all will follow the law. We must that companies will be building these robots and programming them the way they feel will suite them for their own self-interest. I also wonder about the issues ethically like privacy because one would assume that some sort of video would be implemented in the robots. That of course would be left for a different debate. There was another interesting point that was made in the article when the author states, “I think this both poses some interesting questions but also illustrates some of the inherent absurdities of the very concept of general artificial intelligence that is sentient poses. The thing about an artificial intelligence, presuming that it's computer-based, is that at some level, it's inherently going to be programmed. In Isaac Asimov's robot stories, every robot was equipped with the "Three Laws of Robots" -- safeguards that, in theory, meant that intelligent robots wouldn't harm humans and would obey them.” I would hope that stays to be true over the coming weeks and I would hope that our countries legal system will take the matter seriously mainly because if they will be working in the workforce, should they be granted rights? While much discussion over the past couple of weeks has been done on the rights of humanoid robots I decided to look at a different standpoint and determine what ethical issues humanoid robots might give to others in society and how that can relate to their own respective rights. The idea came from a 2016 article by the World Economic Forum on the ethical issues that these humanoid robots will bring. The first issue was the elimination of jobs that will come if these robots are given the jobs instead of humans and the impact that will have, such as unemployment and how that will impact families across the country. One interesting question I think about is if all jobs were at one point to be taken what will we as humans do to be productive in life and how will we make income? Could the government step in and pass a law that will give a family a universal salary that is enough to survive off for the year? That is one question I would ask if this were to come about in the next couple of decades.
Another question that the article points out is how these robots specifically those with artificial intelligence will affect out behavior. The article states, “In 2015, a bot named Eugene Goostman won the Turing Challenge for the first time. In this challenge, human raters used text input to chat with an unknown entity, then guessed whether they had been chatting with a human or a machine. Eugene Goostman fooled more than half of the human raters into thinking they had been talking to a human being. I found this to be very interesting and some might find it to be very scary that the bot could fool humans into thinking they were having a conversation with another human. The next topic which I found very intriguing is how we should combat robots from being racist towards a specific group. A quote which hits the mark the author states, “We shouldn’t forget that AI systems are created by humans, who can be biased and judgemental. Once again, if used right, or if used by those who strive for social progress, artificial intelligence can become a catalyst for positive change.” That is true for many creations as everything for the most part is man-made and as the author states, robots can be beneficial for social progress, but at the same time can harm us in many ways. One of the final points made was the rights of AI and how we should approach this argument. Sure, one might say they are just human-like robots, but isn’t that where the problem lies? If these robots can perform difficult tasks and are going to be taking over jobs, shouldn’t they have some sort of rights. To sum up the article I feel the quote from the article puts it best, “Some ethical questions are about mitigating suffering, some about risking negative outcomes. While we consider these risks, we should also keep in mind that, on the whole, this technological progress means better lives for everyone. Artificial intelligence has vast potential, and its responsible implementation is up to us.” I am fascinated with the prospect of robots having the right to marry and if many experts on this topic are correct, this could happen by the year 2050. One question that comes to mind is where do we go from there? Many must wonder once an android is married to an actual human they will be given the same rights that many married couples are given. There is one scenario that comes to my mind which is the right to take care a someone’s child, if that android is well developed and advanced enough to think on its own then that would entitle that android to take care of a child. If the robot marries a father that had a child from a previous marriage, then would the android be allowed to take care of the child. That is just one case and many more will come to question when this becomes a reality for many on our society.
Then begs the question as to who will decide these rights for the androids and if that should even be the case? As mentioned earlier if an android is advanced in its programming and can do tasks on its own, should lawmakers even decide what rights they should and shouldn’t have? An article from the guardian from January of this year discusses how the European Union committee feels that robots or androids should be given rights, but is it fair that we should be determine this? Going back to the European Union committee’s decision the article finds that, “If I create a robot, and that robot creates something that could be patented, should I own that patent or should the robot? If I sell the robot, should the intellectual property it has developed go with it? These are not easy questions to answer, and that goes right to the heart of this debate,” This quote was given by Ashley Morgan, of international legal practice Osborne Clarke. That also brings up the question of penalties and are these considered violating human rights? As Morgan mentions these are not easy questions which is more of a reason that we should be before our society comes to accept the marriage of robots and will some find this prospect to be a threat against human marriage. Our society in the United States has taken many years to come to the warming of gay marriage and as we know many countries still do not allow gay marriage. Could the year 2050 be too early for many to accept the marriage of an android a human. Has the United States taken steps to address the many issues that will come of this or will they wait and take this on a step-by-step basis. The EU has taken the steps by stating, “A growing number of areas of our daily lives are increasingly affected by robotics,” said the report’s author, Luxembourgish MEP Mady Delvaux. “In order to address this reality and to ensure that robots are and will remain in the service of humans, we urgently need to create a robust European legal framework”. We will have to wait and see what will come of this in the future. Today the topic that I found interesting and wanted to discuss was artificial intelligence and the technology behind it, such as video analytics and how this can be used for our security. I began to learn more about the topic from a 2014 article from Wired which touches base on the topic. One way that this is being done is with AI powered systems which would help with less errors and better results. The article states, “Rather than depend on solely human monitoring, AI-powered systems instead notify security teams of potential threats as they happen, helping businesses prevent break-ins or illegal activity, as well as increasing human accuracy”. This is a very interesting take on this topic as I have not put much though into this component of artificial intelligence. Technology is constantly moving forward and we are trying different ways to incorporate this technology into our society.
One could argue that this technology will be more useful as stated before in the article, but could it take our jobs? Some might consider that if the technology advances enough that there will not be any need for security officers in the future. There are many aspects that one could look at this and how should we approach it? Some are approaching this in a positive manner, but some will not and could find a way to not engage with the technology, perhaps? The article also points out by stating, “Artificial Intelligence helps people do their jobs better, thereby making our lives easier and our locations safer. Whether securing our businesses, cities or homes, or providing more curated online shopping and entertainment experiences, Artificial Intelligence is making technology more personal and purposeful than ever before.” Technology that benefits our society is obviously better for us especially when it comes to our safety. I just wonder though could the argument of privacy be an issue when this technology is implanted, what could be the arguments be when considering privacy being an issue. I would think one argument would be that someone walking in a street and there being a camera that is watching you and observing your actions. Could that be an issue or would that be the equivalent of having a police officer driving through the street. Much can be said on the topic and it will more than likely have different arguments to be discussed. I am very interested in learning more about this topic as AI is becoming more a part of our everyday lives and we must set the tone for how the technology will be played out into society and will be used for our greatest advantage. As mentioned before with safety it seems to have great potential in helping officers have the upper hand to combat criminals while the other side is privacy and being a job killer. All of course will be discussed as the technology progresses and is used more often in our society. The topic that I will be discussing this week is artificial intelligence mainly focusing on sex dolls. What I am curios in discussing is the reason behind why one would want to be with a robot. This is a rather new technology, but is coming as a faster rate than years before. One company that is based in California called Abyss Creations is hoping to release their line of sex dolls within the end of this year or the beginning of next. I have discussed in previous blog posts that there are ethical issues that can apply to the robotics. If an attraction were to develop, how would that play out in our legal system? Another question that comes to mind is what is attraction for these sex dolls, there are obvious reasons as to why some would want these robotics (the name says it all), but how does one build a connection? A 2016 interview from the SUN interviewed Matt McMullen who has a company called “Real Dolls”, the interview stating, “Real Dolls founder Matt McMullen said: “I want to have people actually develop an emotional attachment to not only the robot but the actual character behind it – to develop some kind of love for this being."
There is the issue of collecting information from those who purchase these dolls as well as the price for those wanting to purchase one. The article finds that each doll is estimated at 12,000 pounds or roughly 14,000 American dollars. These dolls aren’t exactly affordable and makes one wonder how much someone is willing to spend on a doll to get that “emotional attachment”. I can see the reasons as to why one would perhaps consider the option, loneliness, sexual desire, or curiosity. The factors are wide ranging and are on the preference of the individual. The technological aspect of these dolls is interesting, one of the tools that give these dolls a more human like feel are per the site, “Built in heaters for that body-heat feel and sensors to respond to touch will be installed to give customers looking for robo romps a more human experience.” This is an interesting aspect to the machines as they are beginning to become more existent in society is the public reaction to these robotic dolls. How will people feel about these dolls as they are more existent in our lives and should they have the same rights as we do? That will be up to the legal system in the future and would marriage to robotics be legalized by the year 2050? Many scientists are predicting that it will be and this will for sure affect our society in many ways such as having the right to a bank account, having the right to take care of a child, and the right to a lawyer. All questions that are interesting for us to know and how will we deal with the new laws? Much to discuss in the future for sure. |
AuthorMichael Ruelas Archives
May 2017
Categories |