The Transhumanist Scrapbook: (Hideous) Method In The EU…

THE TRANSHUMANIST SCRAPBOOK: (HIDEOUS) METHOD IN THE EU PARLIAMENT'S MADNESS
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 27, 2017

This story was another one that seemed to have attracted a lot of people’s attention this past week: an EU parliament committee – a completely powerless “legislative” body – has voted to give robots “rights”, along with a kill switch:

EU Parliament Committee Votes To Give Robots Rights (And A Kill Switch)

I’ve blogged previously about the sneaky jurisprudence implied in such efforts, but this one spells it all out plainly; none of my usual high octane speculation is needed:

Foreseeing a rapidly approaching age of autonomous artificial intelligence, a European Parliament committee has voted to legally bestow electronic personhood to robots. The status includes a detailed list of rights, responsibilities, regulations, and a “kill switch.”

The committee voted by 17 votes to two, with two abstentions, to approve a draft report written by Luxembourg MEP Mady Delvaux, who believes “robots, bots, androids and other manifestations of artificial intelligence” will spawn a new industrial revolution. She wants to establish a European Agency to develop rules for how to govern AI behavior. Specifically, Delvaux writes about how increased levels of autonomy in robot entities will make usual manufacturing liability laws insufficient. It will become necessary, the report states, to be able to hold robots and their manufacturers legally responsible for their acts.

Sounding at times like a governmental whisper of Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, the report states, A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.”

The rules will also affect AI developers, who, according to the report, will have to engineer robots in such a way that they can be controlled. This includes a “kill switch,” a mechanism by which rogue robots can be terminated or shut down remotely. (Emphases in the original)

Now, if you’re like me, you’re seeing or sensing a huge danger here, and it makes me wonder if the water supply in Europe is being doped with anti-sanity and anti-reason drugs, for observe the implicit and explicit logical argument here:

(1) humans are persons;

(2) persons have special rights, and with them come special responsibilities (one shudders to think what “rights” mean to a Eurocrat, but we’ll assume the best and move on);

(3) human consciousness and “personhood” can be produced by machines, and artificial intelligence should constitute “electronic personhood” just like corporations are “corporate persons”

(Of course, this is now all getting to be a little fuzzy, and as I’ve said many times, all this corporate personhood stuff is based in a theological confusion of massive proportions. But, hey, relax, because we’re modern trendy predominantly secularized Europeans and we needn’t bother with the niceties of mediaeval metaphysics, even if those niceties have issued in a horribly screwed up notion like “corporations are persons” while “unborn babies are not” but robots are For my part, the silliness of corporate personhood resides in the old adage “I’ll believe corporations are persons when the State of Texas executes one of them.” Heck, forget about murder, I’d settle for manslaughter and a long prison sentence for a few of them, but I digress.

(4) But we need to protect humanity from the possibility that robots might go rogue and do something like found a corporation (a corporate electronic person, presumably) whose corporate charter says that its corporate electronic personhood function is to kill other persons (presumably of either the human biological sort, or the robotic electronic sort). Thus, we need a

(5) “kill switch” to “terminate the program/robot/electronic person”.

Well, in today’s wonderful transhumanist “cashless” world, why not a “kill switch” in your friendly implant when you start having “unacceptable thoughts” like using cash, or questioning the latest “narrative from Brussels.” If it’s good enough for “electronic persons” then one be quite certain that some insane Eurocrat, somewhere, will propose the same thing for human persons by parity of reasoning…

…a parity of reasoning that will not, of course, extend to corporations.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
____________________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Advertisements

The Transhumanist Scrapbook – If You Have Concerns About A.I. Read…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
March 29, 2016

If you’re like Nick Bostrom, Isaac Asimov, or (not to put myself on their level), me, you probably have a few, nay, probably many misgivings about the idea of artificial intelligence and the coming “robot revolution.” Asimov, in his typically perspicacious way, explored the ethics and moral issues of artificial intelligences and robots in his sci-fi classic, I, Robot, which was made into a film version. There, as we know, VICKI, an artificial intelligence super-computer, takes over the world’s robots and bascially imprisons humanity. For some of us, following the weirdness in financial markets for example, the “dark pools” and algorithmic trading that now constitutes the bulk of commodities and equities trading is tailor made for all sorts of A.I. trouble. Even the popular American television series (one of my favorites, incidentally) Person of Interest explores not only the dangers of A.I., but of two such artificial intelligences battling it out with each other, with humanity caught in the middle. In one episode, the “evil” A.I. gives a little demonstration of its “powers” when it deliberately crashes the stock markets in mere seconds, and then, just as quickly, rectifies it. Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has been sounding the warnings for many years about A.I.

Well, if the following story shared by Mr. A. is any indicator, Bostrom’s and Asimov’s concerns may be entirely justified:

New Sophisticated Humanoid Robot Declares “I Will Destroy Humans”

Consider just the disturbing implications about the new robot “Sophia” as outlined in this paragraph:

It is important to note several things that Hanson mentions.  Sophia first tells us that she would like to be “an ambassador” to humans, as well as to continue her evolution through formal education, studying art and eventually creating a business and having a family. Hanson explicitly states that Sophia will become as “conscious, creative, and capable as any human.” This statement is followed by a key mention of not having the rights of a human. This might seem absurd to the uninitiated, but this is a serious ethical discussion that has been taking place among “roboethicists.” This is all-but guaranteed to gain steam as robots are integrated in autonomous ways, whether it is on the battlefield, as self-driving vehicles (now programmed to sacrifice some humans over others), or certainly as they become visually and intelligently on par with human beings.  Even the mainstream Boston Globe addressed this more than two years ago, citing a 2012 paper from MIT.

At this juncture, the article goes on to mention the existence of – get this! – a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Robots, this in a society that chops up the unborn, sells their parts, harvests human organs, and makes people pay for the whole “privilege.”

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com

————————————————————————–

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.