Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Is it cold in here?:
Momo's built-in taser, at full amperage, is in the lethal range.
The wiki has a compilation of what Jeph has written on the subject.
ZoeB:
Time for me to go looking...
The title of the thread is "What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?"
I contend there are three different ideas here:
Let's look at "ethical". I regard Momo as an adult person. AI espresso machines - it depends not on the body, but the mind. That means responsibilities, as well as authority. The two must balance. Pint Size - more of a child or adolescent.
"Social" - in a state of flux, apparently differing from place to place. Not enough info.
"Legal" - apparently has changed within living memory - see Momo's readings on the subject. Complicated when it comes to destructive weaponry.
I suspect my view is complicated by two factors. First, my work in AI - involving studying others' work. I just can't see a "bright line" when it comes to personhood. I know I'd regard Pan Trogoldytes as people, though with limited rights, just as give those intellectually challenged Homo Sapiens limited rights. Anyone who's worked with dogs knows they're people too, in some sense. A Spiny Lobster on the other hand has no more mind than does a microwave oven.
Second... due to changes in my body, and some neural re-wiring, my status as a person has changed from 1st class to 3rd class, and in some jurisdictions, I'm not regarded legally as a "natural person" any more than is a dog, or microwave oven for that matter. The law is unclear, but by Wood vs CG studios (United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. 1987). I can't sue for employment discrimination because I'm not a "Natural Person". By In the marriage of C and D (falsely called C), (Australian Family Court, Brisbane,1979) I'm prohibited from marrying, unlike people.
Ethically, very, very few people would deny my personhood, even those who think I should be exterminated. Socially, rather more consider my rights to be restricted, as my existence makes things too hard otherwise. Legally - see above.
Akima:
--- Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 18 Apr 2013, 10:45 ---Momo's built-in taser, at full amperage, is in the lethal range.
--- End quote ---
Deathbot 9000 appeared to be equipped with multiple, large-calibre (20mm?) weapons. It does not bear arms. It's arms are arms.
The 2nd Amendment could be tricky with AIs. The distinction between a human and a gun is clear, but what if the weapon is an integral part of an individual? Momo using her electrical weapon might be regarded in the same light as martial-artists striking with their hands or feet. Legal consequences might follow, just as they would for the martial-artist, but the 2nd Amendment would arguably not apply.
Is it cold in here?:
Just to confuse things, AIs can change bodies, so chassis weapons systems are not "integral" in the sense that a cat's teeth and claws are.
Momo is the only case we've seen where a body with potentially lethal weaponry was legally available to a civilian AI. Charlotte was not a civilian while being a nuclear sub, and Deathbot 9000 was a military project all along. (Side note: we have no idea how physically strong they are. A chassis could certainly be built that was strong and fast enough to be a grave danger in unarmed combat.).
Whatever the law, it's a safe bet that there are judges in the QC-verse every bit as unspeakable as those ZoeB mentioned, and outnumbering them, a huge number of regular citizens who still have all their ideas about robots shaped by old science fiction.
Unless Momo enjoys challenging people's misconceptions head-on, I would have expected her to choose a chassis less subject to fetishization and stereotypes. Though the new one is a step up from the old one!
Masterpiece:
I always imagined that AnthroPCs can not chose their first chassis - just like a human can't chose the body he's being born into.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version