Must We Not Hurt Robots' Feelings?

When the robots repeal Asimov's Laws, who's gonna give a damn about their feelings?

But, for a brilliant take on this, read Terrel Miedaner's The Soul of Anna Klane or the two excerpts in Hofstadter's and Dennett's The Mind's I.

In the not-to-distant past, I had the privilege of observing some industrial robots hard at work in a manufacturing facility. To this casual observer, these robots appeared far more intelligent than the current crop of pundits addressing such things as Haiti disaster relief or the Gulf oil spill. They did not appear to be arguing over whose job it was to do what, they did not waste time blaming others for conditions beyond their control, and they appeared quite efficient at handling the task at hand, with minimal wasted effort. Unfortunately, I was unable to determine their emotional state- possibly because they could not be bothered trying to communicate with lower life forms...

In the distant past, as a newly hired automation electrician for an auto manufacturing plant, I noticed a collection of UNIMAT robotic arms in various states of disrepair in a corner of the sub-basement.

The reason given for the "robot cemetery" was that "they didn't work" with an aside comment that hinted at sabotage.

I was in on the "ground floor' for the transition from relay to TTL to microprocessor based logic (even an attempt to utilize pneumatic logic), and saw resistance from the "human element" at every turn.

Will the current fleet of robots be upset when they are replaced by new versions?

I'm resisting the urge to call this a stupid question - because I'm not 100% sure it is.

Quick, someone define "intelligence" in terms of this situation! Many would site the Turing Test, which essentially puts the definition intelligence on the observer. Now, produce a definition for "feelings."

Given that I'm (in theory) a candidate for someday designing the software that implements such "intelligence", I'll tell you that I won't ever give a second thought to hurting any simulated feelings the circuitry and logic produces, and that anyone who does is guilty of impaired thinking. I've got a wonderful, intelligent puppy. No matter how much I enjoy our interactions and teaching her to do interesting things, I don't forget that she's a dog. (That fact implies certain ethics and behavior by the owner/master, but it is NOT the equivalent of a human.)

I really don't expect us to ever get to the point where we codify proper treatment of robots between existing laws governing property rights and the commons. But what do I know - we have decided that corporations are entities with certain rights.

I suppose you are indifferent to the current procedure to grant full "human" rights to dolphins and whlaes as well? Some dogs I have known over the years have evidenced considerably more "intelligence" and "compassion" than many of the humans I have encountered...But, as you note, the definitions of these terms are framed by the observer, not the actor.

Check out the characteristics of living things which includes but not limited to RESPONSE TO STIMULUS and RESPIRATION. Robots do not and cannot have these characteristics.

Living things are classified into Plants and Animals. Where do Robots belong?

Robots are Machines which are built and configured to do certain works.

At the board level, robots are combinations of electronic circuits put in place to achieve the designers' desired results.

Thus, the said emotions that can be expressed by robots will definitely be as programmed by the designer and no matter how the said emotion is refined, it is still the output of a human designer's desire. Indeed an out put of a combination of electronic and mechanical circuits.

Regardless of how refined an emotion expressed by robots, that point will not be at which robots' rights will need protection. Should there be, then it will be ridiculous.

Cheers,

ethobil