Topic: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs? (Read 61792 times)

Deadlywonky · « **Reply #100 on:** 09 Apr 2011, 15:44 »

I like the idea of a test to ensure the individuality and maturity of an AI personality as a precursor to voting rights, like a citizenship test. Maybe the rules on unlawful destruction are more permanent?

Carl-E · « **Reply #101 on:** 09 Apr 2011, 16:49 »

That would be one helluva test - you can't base it on questions, they'd be able to lie through it. You'd have to run some simulation to see what they'd actually do in certain situations.

Pintsize, of course, would go for cruel funnies, and would be disqualified.

Neckbeard (PT410x) would probably be disqualified on the grounds of sedition.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Reminded myself of an apocryphal Ellis Island tale - one of the actual questions for entrance at the turn of the century was, "Would you advocate overthrowing the government through violence or sedition?" (I think they were trying to screen out anarchists)

One old lady though for a moment, and answered "Sedition, I guess. I don't like violence"

Moral: You really shouldn't give people a choice!

akronnick · « **Reply #102 on:** 09 Apr 2011, 18:44 »

That's not a question about loyalty, that's an IQ test!

G-Man: Do you want to violently overthrow the US Government?

Regular Person: No!

Smart Crook: No!

Dumb Crook: Ummm.... No?

Really Dumb Crook; Yes!

raoullefere · « **Reply #103 on:** 09 Apr 2011, 19:13 »

I notice that the Dumb Crook is so dumb that he uses a semicolon where a colon is needed.

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #104 on:** 09 Apr 2011, 19:51 »

Imagine what Pintsize would do with a full colon.

Carl-E · « **Reply #105 on:** 09 Apr 2011, 22:07 »

I don't even want to think what he'd do with an empty colon.

akronnick · « **Reply #106 on:** 09 Apr 2011, 22:20 »

And once again a punctuation error leads to a hilarious tangent.

I may have to learn how to type.

TheEvilDog · « **Reply #107 on:** 10 Apr 2011, 07:25 »

Quote from: akronnick on 09 Apr 2011, 22:20

And once again a punctuation error leads to a hilarious tangent.

I may have to learn how to type.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....<deep breath>....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

How will we be able to make jokes with perfectly typed posts?! It'll be madness. Madness I tells ya!

Marlon Brando must be rolling in his grave.

mike837go · « **Reply #108 on:** 10 Apr 2011, 07:57 »

Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 09 Apr 2011, 19:51

Imagine what Pintsize would do with a full colon.

You'd need a computer tech to administer an electronic enima?

raoullefere · « **Reply #109 on:** 10 Apr 2011, 11:38 »

Quote from: akronnick on 09 Apr 2011, 22:20

And once again a punctuation error leads to a hilarious tangent.

I may have to learn how to type.

It wasn't the typo; it was the ironic placement* of it. For all I could tell, you did it on ~~porpoise~~ ~~purple~~ meant to do that.

Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 09 Apr 2011, 19:51

Imagine what Pintsize would do with a full colon.

I think anyone who's spent enough time around stressed monkeys at a zoo knows the answer to that, only they (I'm guessing here) don't think of it as pron.

*Something like an ironic beard? I can't really say, since I've yet to grasp that concept. Anyway, I know you were all looking forward to a footnote, so…

Method of Madness · « **Reply #110 on:** 10 Apr 2011, 14:18 »

Quote from: TheEvilDog on 10 Apr 2011, 07:25

It'll be madness. Madness I tells ya!

You called?

Kugai · « **Reply #111 on:** 11 Apr 2011, 14:36 »

Why it it I suddenly heard Lurch when you said that

Method of Madness · « **Reply #112 on:** 11 Apr 2011, 14:44 »

Now that you mention that, I probably should've said "You rang?"

Carl-E · « **Reply #113 on:** 11 Apr 2011, 16:38 »

Thank you, Thing.

Method of Madness · « **Reply #114 on:** 11 Apr 2011, 16:39 »

Thing 1 or Thing 2?

mike837go · « **Reply #115 on:** 11 Apr 2011, 19:39 »

Ted Guiesel meets Charles Addams?

gprimr1 · « **Reply #116 on:** 11 Apr 2011, 22:16 »

The question reminds me of the Star Trek TNG where they are deciding if Data is a person or not or the VOY episode where they are deciding if The Doctor has a legal right to copyright his holonovel.

raoullefere · « **Reply #117 on:** 12 Apr 2011, 10:57 »

Quote from: Method of Madness on 11 Apr 2011, 16:39

Thing 1 or Thing 2?

Neither. Man-Thing. And remember, he who knows over-posting burns at the touch of the Man-Arghhh!

Method of Madness · « **Reply #118 on:** 12 Apr 2011, 11:16 »

Check my new title.

mike837go · « **Reply #119 on:** 25 Apr 2011, 07:55 »

Would Clinton's had belong in this thread now that we are aware of it's semi-autonomous mode?

Is Clintion responsible for the actions of his hand or not?

Carl-E · « **Reply #120 on:** 25 Apr 2011, 08:11 »

I think it would if it had a fully autonomous mode. I think it has some robotic programming but without the benefit of a full AI (Really, would you want a hand with a mind of its own? I remind you (again) of Dr. Strangelove!).

Clearly, it has the libido part down, though.

Method of Madness · « **Reply #121 on:** 25 Apr 2011, 09:56 »

I'm pretty sure Dr. Strangelove's hand isn't a robot. It's just a Nazi.

Thiefree · « **Reply #122 on:** 25 Apr 2011, 11:26 »

I'm willing to bet that AnthroPCs take their personality from their usage and the information stored on them.

Winslow is undoubtedly filth-free and used to help Hanners keep things categorised and neat, hence his sunny and innocent disposition.
Momo probably stores copious amounts of anime, hence her appearance.
And Pintsize... well... I'm pretty sure I know what he was originally used for.

Carl-E · « **Reply #123 on:** 25 Apr 2011, 13:55 »

Quote from: Method of Madness on 25 Apr 2011, 09:56

I'm pretty sure Dr. Strangelove's hand isn't a robot. It's just a Nazi.

You're absolutely right, but my point was that it had a mind of its own. Which is why you don't really want a fully sentient body part!

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #124 on:** 26 Apr 2011, 12:20 »

As a general thing, people are responsible for what their property does.

If AnthroPCs are property, then it could be a real problem to own a device that likes to administer unwanted touches to parts of the body normally covered by underwear.

raoullefere · « **Reply #125 on:** 27 Apr 2011, 01:01 »

You're all being a tad silly. Why would a robot hand want to squeeze Faye's breast? Unless he's gay (and possibly even then, given their impressiveness) you can bet Clinton does. The hand is merely responding to his subconscious desires (or possibly merely unexpressed desires), just as I've suggested Pintsize does to Marten's.

Of course, this actually makes that hand much scarier. Strangelove's hand might very well be acting on his own self-hatred. What if Clintonhand develops such issues?

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #126 on:** 27 Apr 2011, 01:12 »

Good point: he did say SEMI-autonomous.

mike837go · « **Reply #127 on:** 27 Apr 2011, 05:22 »

Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 27 Apr 2011, 01:12

Good point: he did say SEMI-autonomous.

Another thing to consider: Remote controlled devices are NOT autonimous so the human user is 100% responsible. Now we consider a self-aware computer that has [been trained | personality osmosis ] fuctioning on it's own or with minimal supervision.

I'd still put the ultimate responsibility on people.

[I am reminding myself that we are discussing a web comic and The Rule Of Funny applies, regardless of what should be in the real world. Help me out here, friends: What is "real" anyway?]

Carl-E · « **Reply #128 on:** 27 Apr 2011, 07:35 »

Quote from: mike837go on 27 Apr 2011, 05:22

What is "real" anyway?

Beats the hell outta me. I lost touch with reality a loooooong time ago!

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #129 on:** 27 Apr 2011, 13:29 »

"Real" applies to explanations that are simple, complete, and too boring to accept.

Carl-E · « **Reply #130 on:** 27 Apr 2011, 13:50 »

Quote from: raoullefere on 27 Apr 2011, 01:01

You're all being a tad silly. Why would a robot hand want to squeeze Faye's breast? Unless he's gay (and possibly even then, given their impressiveness) you can bet Clinton does. The hand is merely responding to his subconscious desires (or possibly merely unexpressed desires), just as I've suggested Pintsize does to Marten's.

Of course, this actually makes that hand much scarier. Strangelove's hand might very well be acting on his own self-hatred. What if Clintonhand develops such issues?

Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 27 Apr 2011, 01:12

Good point: he did say SEMI-autonomous.

I wonder what full autonomy looks like.

Probably some boring demo mode, showing off what the hand can do.

...and that would've been a better choice in the comic, given the results!

Kugai · « **Reply #131 on:** 27 Apr 2011, 15:15 »

Puttin' On The Ritz?

Carl-E · « **Reply #132 on:** 28 Apr 2011, 20:55 »

Well, I guess that was demo mode...

mike837go · « **Reply #133 on:** 29 Apr 2011, 12:32 »

Just remember that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistingushable from a rigged demo.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #134 on:** 18 Apr 2013, 02:49 »

Necroposting because there were some comments in the "Trans* discussion arising from comic" thread, along the AI rights line, that I wanted to respond to.

Quote from: ZoeB on 17 Apr 2013, 21:07

There's been not a hint of overt social AI-phobia, though the Government Instrumentalities treat AIs with less than respect. The 2nd amendment doesn't apply, and I think the 14th is limited - an everyone accepts that as normal. Even wonderful people. The "othering", it's embedded so deeply, they're not even aware of it.

Actually, we don't know that AIs don't have second amendment rights.

First off, both cases were in the pre-Momo (and therefore pre-AnthroPC rights) era of the comic. I believe Jeph has changed the timeline some re: the AIs, so that the older strips now look incongruous with the continuity presented in current strips. AIs may actually have full 2A rights in QC now.

Because of this, in both cases, robots were considered property in those strips. Marten was in possession of classified government property in the form of the laser - not at all a second amendment issue. VespAvenger was in possession of an illegal combat robot - that starts to be a second amendment issue, but no more so than heavily restricting fully automatic weapons, which is almost universally accepted (I do know someone who hates the NRA because they're "too soft", and supported restriction of full-auto weapons, though - can you say orange shirt?)

And, finally, the VespAvenger's robot may not have actually had a full AI - almost everything that it did, except for kicking Marten in the "mantenna array", was initiated by commands from her remote control.

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #135 on:** 18 Apr 2013, 10:45 »

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 · « **Reply #136 on:** 19 Apr 2013, 03:37 »

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 · « **Reply #137 on:** 19 Apr 2013, 06:36 »

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.

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? · « **Reply #138 on:** 19 Apr 2013, 11:12 »

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 · « **Reply #139 on:** 19 Apr 2013, 11:34 »

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.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #140 on:** 19 Apr 2013, 11:59 »

However, Momo's electric discharge attack has been in BOTH her original and her new chassis.

I'm almost wondering if it's a technique that exploits the hardware that all AnthroPCs have, rather than specialized hardware. Doubtful, though, especially given the voltages and currents at play here.

In 1474, Momo was about half a meter away from the computer. Dielectric breakdown voltage of dry air is 33 kV per cm, so over 50 cm, we're talking about 1.65 MV. And, we know that Momo's discharge can be lethal when turned up, which means it's at least 50 mA (the general rules are, needs to be about 50 V to cross through a human's body, needs to be about 50 mA to stop the heart - less voltage, more current, resistance is too high for the current to make it across the skin to get to the heart; more voltage, less current, it hurts like a SOB but isn't enough to affect the heart).

If she can keep the voltage at that level when the current is at 50 mA, we're talking about 82.5 kW of energy. That is a CRAPTON of energy - in the real world, Momo's original chassis could probably hold about 50 Wh of batteries if very densely packed. Ignoring internal resistance or safety considerations, a 82.5 kW load would drain a 50 Wh battery in 2.16 seconds. (In reality, trying to draw 82.5 kW from a 65C 50 Wh LiPoly battery (so we're talking state-of-the-art, dangerous chemistry batteries here) wouldn't work, and the battery would probably burst into flame.)

Actually, now I want to see here... about 3.25 kW is the most you can get from such a battery. Now let's run those numbers. W = V * I, we know 3.25 kW, we're aiming for 50 mA, that means we get 65 kV. So, Momo needs to be within 1.97 cm of her target, to work within the ratings of her battery (assuming a 65C LiPo, which like I said is a quite unstable chemistry (read: bursts into flame easily), and deliver a lethal shock. Now, at 3.25 kW, she can sustain that for 55 seconds - EASILY enough to stop a person's heart for good.

Edit: Oh, and assuming the same 3.25 kW, she would have been putting about 2 mA into the computer. Enough to do damage for sure, with how sensitive circuits like that are at that high voltage. Not sure if it'd actually smoke the computer like that.

Carl-E · « **Reply #141 on:** 19 Apr 2013, 13:48 »

Consider the smoke to be artistic license, then.

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #142 on:** 19 Apr 2013, 13:55 »

She's documented in-comic as being able to produce 250 mA. There's a cite for that on the wiki.

She might have fried the computer by induction, or may be able to produce stepped leaders. Even lightning doesn't have enough voltage to do thousands of feet of dielectric breakdown.

If I were designing her self-defense system I'd have a capacitor bank for it. There are lots of ways to get extreme peak power without huge amounts of energy.

But this isn't the engineering thread.

One little piece of Word of God that I don't think got captured anywhere was that job discrimination is not routine. Jeph said Momo's difficulty in getting hired was just because the local job situation was grim, and while there were doubtless some discriminatory people the job market in general was equal opportunity.

Pilchard123 · « **Reply #143 on:** 19 Apr 2013, 14:01 »

Something Garand said got me to thinking: what would happen in an AnthroPC joined the military? Since they (presumably) cannot feel pain and (presumably) would function even if parts were missing, would they ever be used as decoys/meatshields/mine-clearers? If the 'brain' can be backed up, would they be considered expendable? I'd like to think this would not happen, since the existence if human AIs (seriously, I sometimes forget that Momo is not human in the biological sense) would sort of imply the existence of equally advanced non-intelligent machines. Just some thoughts.

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #144 on:** 19 Apr 2013, 14:14 »

Especially since an M-31 chassis is apparently only a few thousand dollars secondhand. Doubtless more when acquired new and military-capable, of course.

Is there anything in the UCMJ that would prevent ordering them to walk through minefields?

Would their vulnerability to EMP guns make them useless in combat?

DSL · « **Reply #145 on:** 19 Apr 2013, 15:14 »

They would be the best drone operators.

Or drones.

There you go. Imagine Pintsize enlisting, and opting to be upgraded to a General Atomics MQ-9 chassis.

You're welcome ...

Neko_Ali · « **Reply #146 on:** 19 Apr 2013, 17:01 »

That would just mean when sent on a mission, instead of explosives he would drop graphic disgusting pictures of crazy pornography on the enemy.... I leave it up to you if that's worse or not, but I am pretty sure it's against the Geneva Convention.

DSL · « **Reply #147 on:** 19 Apr 2013, 20:16 »

Quote from: Neko_Ali on 19 Apr 2013, 17:01

That would just mean when sent on a mission, instead of explosives he would drop graphic disgusting pictures of crazy pornography on the enemy.... I leave it up to you if that's worse or not, but I am pretty sure it's against the Geneva Convention.

So he'd be Yelling Bird, then.

jwhouk · « **Reply #148 on:** 19 Apr 2013, 21:05 »

I suddenly have a little head-canon of my own: Yelling Bird was Pintsize's "first" owner.

Storel · « **Reply #149 on:** 19 Apr 2013, 21:50 »

Quote from: jwhouk on 19 Apr 2013, 21:05

I suddenly have a little head-canon of my own: Yelling Bird was Pintsize's "first" owner.

That... would explain a lot.

In a very scary way...

Added later, after reading the earlier posts in this topic:

Quote from: Near Lurker on 05 May 2010, 11:17

Now I'm wondering if there really are 1.5-2m "fully functional" anthroPC's. And if so, why there's still a market for Realdolls.

Because a "fully functional" anthroPC would basically be a RealDoll++ -- it would have to have hardware to do a whole lot of things that RealDolls can't, like walking and talking and moving their arms and manipulating things with their hands and having facial expressions, plus as much hardware and software as it needs to achieve sentience. In other words, it would be quite a bit more expensive than RealDolls, which run around $6,000-7,000 these days. (And some comparable Japanese sex dolls are up to $10,000.)

So RealDolls are still around in the QCverse because they're cheaper, thus appealing to a different market niche.

Edit 2: Oh, and as far as the actual thread topic is concerned: I think AnthroPCs are treated like children. They can talk, they're sentient, and they have some rights -- but they don't have the full rights (and responsibilities) that adult humans do. The adult human in the household is responsible for their actions and their welfare. Sounds just like children to me.

Except that children eventually get old enough to acquire the full rights and responsibilities of adult humans, and there's no clear evidence yet that AIs do. (Although AIs as mature as Station, at least, can have bank accounts and take money out of them without an adult human's permission.)

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Poll

How are AnthroPCs regarded in the QC universe?

Author Topic: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs? (Read 61792 times)

TheEvilDog