Should robots have rights or rites in the modern age?

Category Artificial Intelligence

tldr #

As robots continue to become more integrated into our lives, a recent review of research on robot rights proposes a Confucian-inspired approach to assigning role obligations to robots instead of granting rights. Although rights often lead to conflict, role obligations encourages teamwork, which ultimately leads to harmony. However, ultimately there is much to consider when it comes to granting robots moral and legal status.

content #

Notable philosophers and legal experts have delved into the moral and legal implications of robots, with a few advocating for giving robots rights. As robots become more integrated into various aspects of life, a recent review of research on robot rights concluded that extending rights to robots is a bad idea. The study, instead, proposes a Confucian-inspired approach.

This review, by a scholar from Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), was recently published in the Communications of the ACM, a journal published by the Association for Computing Machinery. "People are worried about the risks of granting rights to robots," notes Tae Wan Kim, Associate Professor of Business Ethics at CMU’s Tepper School of Business, who conducted the analysis. "Granting rights is not the only way to address the moral status of robots: Envisioning robots as rites bearers—not a rights bearers—could work better." .

Many international laws and organizations such as the International Labour Organization recognize that AI can cause ethical concerns and human rights violations

Although many believe that respecting robots should lead to granting them rights, Kim argues for a different approach. Confucianism, an ancient Chinese belief system, focuses on the social value of achieving harmony; individuals are made distinctively human by their ability to conceive of interests not purely in terms of personal self-interest, but in terms that include a relational and a communal self. This, in turn, requires a unique perspective on rites, with people enhancing themselves morally by participating in proper rituals.

The suggestion of granting role obligations instead of rights is based on the idea of respecting robots for the purpose of self-development and harmony among humans and robots instead of the adversarial relationship of rights

When considering robots, Kim suggests that the Confucian alternative of assigning rites—or what he calls role obligations—to robots is more appropriate than giving robots rights. The concept of rights is often adversarial and competitive, and potential conflict between humans and robots is concerning.

"Assigning role obligations to robots encourages teamwork, which triggers an understanding that fulfilling those obligations should be done harmoniously," explains Kim. "Artificial intelligence (AI) imitates human intelligence, so for robots to develop as rites bearers, they must be powered by a type of AI that can imitate humans’ capacity to recognize and execute team activities—and a machine can learn that ability in various ways." .

Rites are different from rights in that they are not a question of morality, but of social and relational behavior, allowing satellites AI a new perspective on the concept of team work

Kim acknowledges that some will question why robots should be treated respectfully in the first place. "To the extent that we make robots in our image, if we don’t treat them well, as entities capable of participating in rites, we degrade ourselves," he suggests.

Various non-natural entities—such as corporations—are considered people and even assume some Constitutional rights. In addition, humans are not the only species with moral and legal status; in most developed societies, moral and legal considerations preclude researchers from gratuitously using animals for lab experiments.

The moral and legal implications of robots is a complex issue and needs to be studied in order to create roles and obligations for robots

Reference: "Should Robots Have Rights or Rites?" by Tae Wan Kim and Alan Strudler, 24 May 2023, Communications of the ACM.DOI: 10.1145/3571721 .

hashtags #
worddensity #