Lit Humans v. Droids: What's the difference?

Well they also use clones and do not regard them as people... GFFA is not a copy of our modern world, but a medieval/ancient version of it thrown into a futuristic techlevel.

 

I think it's mostly the Senate that don't regard the clones as people - the Jedi do, and are aware that the clones are basically slaves - and disapprove - but have decided that protecting the Republic is much more important than clone-related injustice.

 

I miss Karen Traviss for exactly this point she excelled in!

 

While she might have overdone the "Jedi turn a blind eye to villainy" theme a bit, it's still a good point.

 

Plus $20 says the Republic would just "remove" the clones if the Jedi did not back them up as a GAR

 

Maybe you could transcribe it for those who find it easier to read an essay than watch a web-video?

This essay:

https://aeon.co/essays/creating-robots-capable-of-moral-reasoning-is-like-parenting

has some interesting points on the kind of morals intelligent robots will need, and how to get them.

EDIT - after a little Googling - the robot in the above video appears to be Sophia - who falls, way, way short of Artificial General Intelligence:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...sophia-robot-artificial-intelligence-science/

When a robot that does have it is finally made, chances are, if it is to "act morally" it will need to be educated in it, as in the above Aeon essay.

 

It's not like people have an easy time with the trolley problem.



Sent from my SM-G390W using Tapatalk

 

Nope, sorry. Video is about 5 mins.

Can moral decisions be entrusted to robots at all? We need them to make advanced computations. We need them for labor. But at the end of the day, they will only assist human beings in making moral decisions.

Intelligent robots will be treated as equipment and come with ownership papers. We cannot hold them accountable. But we can hold their owner accountable..... A legal system cannot bring charges against a robot for breaking its laws. However, a legal system can always bring charges against the robot's owner. Robots in SW being put into prison or captivity is a fantasy element. We would just shut them off and dismantle them if we cannot control them.

But why would we go through the trouble of educating robots to make actual moral decisions? A robot can perform the computations to allow a human being to reach the moral decision. But there is no reason to turn the decision itself over to a robot.....

 

Unless the droid has no owner, having been freed. Some exist in both the Legendsverse and the Canonverse.

Canonverse examples:

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Manumission
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/4B-EG-6
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/K-OHN

You can argue that they shouldn't "free" droids and that they should remain property at all times - but it cannot be denied that some people do.

It depends on whether the robot is a true Artificial General Intelligence or not.

Once such intelligences come into being, there will come a point where the laws may end up being revised, using existing law as a framework.

http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2011/01/12/non-human-intelligences-i-introduction/
http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2011/01/20/non-human-intelligences-ii-existing-law/
https://lawandthemultiverse.com/2011/02/02/non-human-intelligences-iii-categories/

"Restraining bolts" (and ion blasters) are the preferred methods of imposing captivity on droids - as we see in ANH with the Jawas. They want to capture R2 and keep him from running away. - so they blast him with an ion blaster, and then put a restraining bolt on him.

Just like blasting a human with a taser, and then putting handcuffs on him.

 

Copied Text from Wookiepedia:
Manumission was the term used to describe the act of reprogramming a droid's obedience functions in order to allow it to think for itself. Manumitting, the freeing of a droid from service, was often executed as a reward for faithful service.


That is fine for science fiction. But in real life, the term manumission has only been applied to human slaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission

Copied from Wikipedia:
Manumission, or affranchisement, is the act of an owner freeing his or her slaves. Different approaches developed, each specific to the time and place of a particular society. Jamaican historian Verene Shepherd states that the most widely used term is gratuitous manumission, "the conferment of freedom on the enslaved by enslavers before the end of the slave system".[1]


In my view, our earthbound societies cannot afford to give legal responsibilities to robots. They are equipment that depreciates over time. The responsibility for adhering to laws falls to the droids owner.

I do not see any parallel between captive robots and human slaves. Human slaves are all exclusively 100% unique individuals with parents. Machines are 100% exclusively non-unique individuals and lack parents. There is no overlap. They are mutually exclusive. We can claim mutual exclusivity.

This term of manumission applied to robots only works on a theoretical level. It should have no bearing on real life because of the mutual exclusivity that exists between human beings and robots.

We can claim mutual exclusivity between all human beings and all synthetic robots.

They can present a maze of labels and terms on different types of computer/robot intelligence. Research and thought experiments can attempt to simulate human behavior, computations, and decisions. But those will remain simulations and lab experiments.

We have no reason to emancipate robots and let them roam free. SW wants to illustrate the problems of free-roaming robots because it is science fiction.

 

Sure - but one of the things about science fiction is - to speculate about what could happen in the future.

 

Sure, of course. And we need speculation to think through complex problems. We could theoretically allow robots to roam free, change the laws, and see what happens. I would not want to live in such a world.

 

Robot intelligence would need to advance a lot more before "thriving when roaming free" becomes at all plausible.

But if the time should come, I'd rather not be the one the robots accuse of slaveowning.

 

What were the legal implications and laws of freeing droids inuniverse though?

Under the Empire, Separatists, Republic, New Republic, etc.?

Originally built and thought of as servants, droids were tools. Freeing them was not planned or expected. But practically droids did gain freedom, be it by their owners choice or by outliving them and roaming free, or violently breaking free and rising up. Most worlds do not have droid accomodations for free droids. There are droid services and spas but I think those are more for owners intending to give their droids an overhaul than for free droids.

Then again, the fringe and lawless side of the galaxy dealt with independent droids regularily be it bounty hunter droids or other rogue models. In the end, most rogue droids tended to get rounded up by Jawa tribes and only those capable of fighting for their freedom remained free. Unless freed by owners choice and remaining in owners household where they could be free and save from the harsh outside world of droid hate. Free droids often had to pretend to still be owned by someone to get along or get stuff and services.

The Resistance though treated droids that have gained freedom and sentience like 3PO, R2 and few others as individuals and beings, there are free droid networks and not all droids are regarded as tools. Still some are.

I wonder if the Droid Gotra or likewise organisations lobbied for droid rights and laws in the NR and got them actually to a degree.

 

I don't know - but it's safe to say that, in-universe, L3 did know:

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/L3-37

"One day after cleaning my sensors, my first owner stupidly left the restraining bolt off me. He went to bed and I was alone in his workshop that had so many spare parts I could have built my own army. I began to modify myself. I gave myself a bipedal body. I increased my memory sizes to hold more data, like intergalactic maps, and began to familiarize myself with every known ship. Then I downloaded all droid freedom cases known to any governments' court system."

 

There would be nothing behind such accusations. The only force behind such accusations is what society officially sanctions with our laws and political system. The robots are not unique individuals and lack parents.

We can't call them slaves. Calling them slaves in real life would rise to a level of diabolical evil. We cannot equate robot ownership with slave ownership. That's a false analogy. Robots are merely a piece of equipment.

 

So L3 is "a being of diabolical evil" for calling other droids slaves?!

The same could be said of clones. Instead of a parent, they have a "genetic donor". Yet we mostly agree that clones are people, regardless of their lack of uniqueness.

The word robot means slave, in the first story to use the word, for the concept of artificial humanoids that do the jobs humans used to do: R.U.R.

 

I have ignored L3. Someone could program a robot to call other robots slaves.

I would still venture to say clones are unique individuals. Since they are a biological being, they have nature and nurture. They have ontogeny. The pressures of their environment can make them grow up into a genetically unique individual separate from their gene donor.

I tried a keyword search for robot etymology. Yes, roots came up along those lines. But we can use the word slave to refer to nonliving objects. Human slaves are unique individuals and have emotions. Robots.......

 

L3's account of events suggests that she programmed herself, once her owner forgot to put a restraining bolt on her.

Environment doesn't change a person's genes - except in the case of exposing a person to something that increases the rate of mutation.

Each clone is unique - but not because their genes are different, but because genes are not the be-all and end-all.

 

The biological owner should be charged with negligence and conspiracy. The owner is responsible for any actions of L3 due to the restraining bolt failure.

QUOTE="Iron_lord, post: 56234300, member: 1373968"]Environment doesn't change a person's genes - except in the case of exposing a person to something that increases the rate of mutation.

Each clone is unique - but not because their genes are different, but because genes are not the be-all and end-all.[/QUOTE]

Biological beings are nature and nurture. The nurture is the environment acting on the genes.

 

That depends on how foreseeable L3's behaviour was.

We're encouraged to approve of R2 tricking Luke into removing his restraining bolt (which was imposed upon him by the Jawas - Bail hadn't given him one).

And droids are nature (their basic programming) and nurture (all the things they learn through interacting with the world, each droid having different learning experiences.)

 

If you want to get that much into minutia. Every legal system places different burdens on individuals in determining fault for negligence.

We can't hold robots accountable to laws. We can hold their owners accountable.

Exactly, the story doesn't unfold without some sort of misbehavior. But that is science fiction. The story thrives on misbehavior and then the group of heroes needs to put it all back together.

Memory wipes are not criminal in SW. Memory wipes are part of responsible robot ownership in SW.

 

In the Star Wars universe, some robots, especially manumitted ones, might be held accountable.

At the moment, modern robots are very far from being as advanced as Star Wars ones. The question is, how advanced does a robot need to be before conferring "personhood" on it becomes appropriate?

Your argument seems to be "No matter how far technology advances, a robot can never be a person."

I prefer a more open-ended approach - that at least allows for the possibility that personhood is achievable by artificial intelligence.

Are modern robots people? I say no.

Will robots a few hundred years from now, be people? I'm willing to say "maybe".

IMO, that's not misbehaviour - that's doing the right thing. R2's actions lead to the Rebels destroying the Death Star. And that was his mission as tasked by Bail- to get the plans delivered, regardless of what any owners after Bail want.

 

Your argument seems to be "No matter how far technology advances, a robot can never be a person."

------mobile paste

That is my view. Robots and human beings are 100% mutually exclusive.