Are You Robot or Human?

Certainly not in our lifetimes.

I see the first step as the implantation of a chip that will allow us to perform complex calculations and mental functions such as reasoning and memory. (No more lost keys)

Maybe even enhanced muscle function and control. (No more need for Viagra, new speed records in the 100 yard dash, etc.)

I'm glad I'll miss it.

What gives you the idea that we've granted people equal rights? Unless you wish to consider the Orwellian idea that all people are equal but some people are more equal than others.

I didn't say people have equal rights....

So do you think that machines will obtain equal rights before people?

Equal rights is a generic term...Discrimination laws are specific, but even discrimination laws are not uniform, in the U.S., they vary from state to state...The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923, has yet to be fully ratified into the Constitution...This question has to do with the context in which this question would be disallowed to humans, regarding race, religion, sexual orientation, disabilities and other individual characteristics that would have nothing to do with the ability to perform tasks associated with employment for a specific job...Obviously this is well into the future when robots would be indistinguishable from humans....The question then is when do you think this will occur...Machines may indeed obtain equal rights before people, if by equal rights you mean they are all treated the same under the law...

When you put it that way, I have two answers for you and both maybe a true prediction. Machines already have rights equal to humans because people are not granted equal rights now and never will be. Machines will never achieve the rights of a person because we will never agree what rights a person has for just being a person.

...when they ask, and have an understanding of it's meaning. Star Trek (Next Generation) has sort of addressed the issue, though I was non the wiser for watching. There's a Robin Williams film that does similar. Will Smith, yeah, well you've all seen that.

You wrote, "When it will be considered discrimination to ask this question, are you human or robot?"

When laws are passed to that effect.

It is already discrimination if you adopt the strict definition of the word, which means to differentiate one from the other.

Clearly, machines can play a different role than humans and it ay be required to discriminate between human and robot as a means to determine which is suitable for the job.

Case in point would be the robots used at Three-Mile-Island to clean up the reactor vessel. That job would not be suitable for a biological entity. Failure to discriminate the right candidate for the job would result in loss of life and teams of lawyers parachuting into action.

Let's say your hiring a secretary, and the two women pictured above are applicants....They have similar work history and experience...You have a number of questions regarding qualifications, but you probably wouldn't ask them certain questions, like religion, politics, race or ethnic origin, sexual preference....You are living at a time, in this scenario, where robots are in the workforce, and are indistinguishable from humans...At some point in time, it becomes politically incorrect to ask the question, "Are you robot or human",what year is it??

Asking "Are you robot or human?" will likely cause legal repercussions today. Are you trying to figure out when one can ask such a rude question?

Even today if any status is truly relevant to how well somebody/thing can perform the job then even questions of religion, politics, ethnic origin and disability can be asked. The problem many employers have always had with these types of questions is that the employers comfort or perception of relevance is not sufficient proof of relevance to the job.

"Asking "Are you robot or human?" will likely cause legal repercussions today. "

Really....Do you suspect that some of your coworkers are humanoid robots then?? Just pretending to be human..

It's the fact that you asked if a person was a robot that is insulting, you callous android. Do you have the idea now, you inhuman thing?

Kinda like congratulating a pregnant woman on the upcoming birth, and finding out she's not pregnant.

That's a big no-no.

So it's ok to ask if the person in question is a robot if in fact they are a robot just not if the're human?

1972 ?

You are right. I would not ask those questions or any other questions that are not relative to either the job or the character of the individual (in a job related way).

I would not care about their gardening skills unless it tells me something about how that person deals with a work related problem or how they handle themselves.

Additionally, I would not ask a candidate about their dictation skills if they are hiring for as a firefighter.

In the case of the firefighter they are required to fulfill other requirements that are job related, which include physical strength, health, and courage under fire. None of these attributes are needed for secretarial positions, but essential for fighting fires.

To fill those two positions successfully an interviewer must discriminate between the two candidates to determine their suitability for the job.

I submit to you that discrimination is not only an essential requirement, but a good one, too! However, like any tool it can be used in a good way and a bad way.

My gripe is that socially we have given the word discrimination a bad reputation and cast it as evil. This is not the case. What must be understood and learned is what attributes are relevant for discrimination and what elements are not relevant to the potential job. Irrelevant attributes do not belong in the selection process.

As for living in a time that robots are indistinguishable from humans - well, the only way that could be is if the robots are biologically human. Then they would not be robots.

The reason is, we build robots to do tasks that a human either can not do, can not due efficiently, or a human does not like doing.

In all three cases you are discriminating between machine and human in a capacity that determines the suitability for the task.

Maybe the wider question is whether a machine will be considered sentient enough to be granted rights. That is a long philosophical discussion that I don't think has a conclusion - yet. We are a long way from that resolution, too.

Meanwhile, we build and deploy machines for specific tasks that are not well suited for humans and that is the whole purpose of designing and building them in the first place.

I thought it was to cut costs, boost profits, reduce liabilities....

I think my cited reasons do that. :)

I prefer "swooping", if it's all the same to you.

Robots are not living things. They do not feel emotions, nor suffer pain, and therefore it is ethically acceptable to push machines to their limits and replace them when they break or recycle their parts. Machines/robots can be treated as slave labour - it would be absurd to treat them otherwise, since they cannot feel or respond to rewards or punishments. They do not require compensation of any kind except for a little physical maintenance to keep them in top form, and they are well suited to monotonous, repetitive tasks that would be burdensome to a living creature.

The project of making "A-life" or attempting to give machines the ability to feel emotions or pain, or otherwise simulate the feelings and needs of the living is... either a quirky game or somewhat insane. Sure we are fond of our machines. If obedience and subservience are the desired traits for your ideal companion, why not dress up a machine instead of, say, getting a dog or cat with real needs and unique character, to substitute for the missing human element in a person's life.

A robot will never be more than a toy or a simulation. The biotech people can't make life in the lab, and it isn't going to happen in robotics, either. Robots will never feel or be alive. So the answer to your question is: never.

I don't think the robotic version of Michael Jackson counts. :)

Actually, SE, come to think of it, you may be on to something with the 'robot rights'. In fact there was a case here just last year in which a man was charged with 5 counts of attempted murder for shooting at a police robot during a standoff.

However, the attempted murder charges were dropped after the preliminary hearing. So robot rights may be a way off yet.

Here is a report of the robot being shot at. As you can see, it is not even a humanoid robot. Poor thing required repairs though.

It was quite a standoff, all told, with various technical and tactical means employed in addition to the robotics.

http://www.thewesternstar.com/News/Local/2011-02-14/article-2240158/Bay-Bulls-standoff-cost-almost-half-a-million-dollars-before-suspect-escaped/1

I come from a time, and place, where if a cur dog chased your livestock, you shot it.The dog, that is. Didn't matter if it was yours, or the neighbors or a strangers.Now, you'd have to get the damn dog therapy, then put it in a home for disturbed pooches.
No telling what attorneys will invent next for sensitive robots.

"No telling what attorneys will invent next for sensitive robots."

Yep. Especially if they're owned by the police.

They needed a couple of these spiderman robots to sneak up on the side while he was occupied with the other one...

Maybe the robot wasn't big and intimidating enough...Send one of these bad boys in next time...

MORAV stands for (Multi-Operational Robotic Armored Vehicle).

Well that's more like it... after all, the man was rumoured to be suffering from a "paranoid" disorder. Hence all the special treatment.

If the robot is smart enough to be offended by that question. They will likely already own us. As soon as they realize we are dependant upon the same natural resources, evolution will take place.

Geminoid F is the android actress above...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgezu9_robot-actress-geminoid-f_tech