There's loads of stuff in SF about robots, AIs or such getting or having the same rights as humans. Bicentennial Man is probably one of the more well known.
But does anybody know if any of the major institutions like the church, UN etc actually has a policy on things like citizenship, 'human' rights, freedom, spirituality for a machine intelligence , assuming it was a self aware intelligence.
Just curious y'know
The Church would class them as an effrontery to God and burn them. The UN would take so long to come to a decision on them that they would have by then risen up and destroyed all fleshy ones.
I have a law degree with international law as my honours "speciality," focused largely on human rights, and I'm pretty confident that nobody of official status, such as the UN, has bothered with these issues yet.
Human rights apply to humans only. It's an essential prerequisite.
However, a great deal of legal precedent exists on the issue of personhood - at exactly what point an entity, such as a company or a country, is recognised.
Related to that are the rules on safeguarding the interests of children and other people who can't give their legal consent, such as people with special needs. They'll have a guardian who makes their decisions for them.
Possibly an artificial person would start off being treated in a similar way to a child or an animal.
They might be protected from unnecessary suffering, for example, if their status evolved beyond where only pure property law would apply.
Eventually, they might be recognised as people, but it would probably take legislation in whichever countries to define the criteria.
The usual test for whether someone is able to think for themselves (mainly used in criminal matters) is whether they know the difference between right and wrong.
That's one of the first questions child witnesses in court cases will be asked.
Science fiction also talks of "sentience," IIRC, in terms of whether an entity can learn from its experiences,so that may be an element.
Does that make any sense?
Sorry to ramble on.
- Trout
I'm not sure that the Church would condemn thinking machines as an affront to God. Some in the Church might see them as a threat, but I would think most would accept them.
After all, the main tenants of an enlightened religion would be to embrace all races, creeds and colours (even chrome.)
I suppose how organisations would regard sentient robots would depend on how they are generally regarded. After all, these organisations would be made up of ordinary people wouldn't they.
A slave race? Possibly. Ku Klux Klan-like vigilantes a-la the Neon Knights keeping them in check. Also possible. But surely this is the worst possible senario. I would like to believe that when the day comes when an artificial person can be created, mankind would have grown up enough to treat them with a proper sense of decency. Or am I too niave?
Link: The A-Z of Cal-Hab
"After all, the main tenants of an enlightened religion would be to embrace all races, creeds and colours (even chrome.)"
Unless of course they were witches, then the Church would have no choice but to burn them.
This is all getting a bit Pat Mills.
I knew it was a bad idea to try to be serious here...
ALL HAIL ME!
Ta for the brief serious interlude.
I like the irony of lawyers ( questionable intelligence and humanity) arguing the fate of a sentient computer (questionable intelligence and humanity).