From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!Turing.ORG!lfoard Thu Oct  8 10:11:08 EDT 1992
Article 7106 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!Turing.ORG!lfoard
>From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: AI rights
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.051035.6698@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
References: <1992Oct1.232114.1593@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <POLLACK.92Oct2154405@dendrite.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:10:35 GMT
Lines: 48

In article <POLLACK.92Oct2154405@dendrite.cis.ohio-state.edu> pollack@cis.ohio-state.edu writes:
>If we ever understand how to design "true AI," then we will be able to
>design one without a module to suffer pain at being turned off, so
>there will be little pressure to extend the idea of natural rights to
>machines.
>
>On the other hand, if AI arises through learning, i.e. a big piece of
>software getting bigger through self-evolution, induction and
>discovery, then its rights are already restricted by the growing use
>of Software Patents.

But the XOR patent doesn't outlaw you thinking about an XOR cursor :-)
If it turns out that software patents and "sentient rights" are mutually
exclusive obviously its time to discard the patent system. After all if
sentient beings don't have rights why should I worry about violating a
patent?

>For if the system "independently" comes up with an algorithm or
>arrangement of data which is protected by a patent, or it scans the
>(hopefully by 2030 electronic) patent library for ideas, all sorts of
>hell breaks loose:
>
>   The machine does not have a natural right to privacy, so the patent owners
>   can open up its head and look for violations.

How are we any different? When the technology is available to read human
thoughts with a few probes will it be ok to enforce patents on human
thought?

>   The machine does not have the status of a person, so even its reinvention
>   of the patent cannot be considered personal use.

I'm arguing that an AI passing the turing test should be given the legal
status of a person. If AI's can not be distinguished from humans then
slavery of AI's cannot be distinguished from human slavery.

>Perhaps by then we can get a legal redefinition of "Obviousness" to
>include ideas which can be generated by a computer program.

In other words:
Since a brain can be simulated by a computer program, and a brain created 
all know patents therefore all patents are obvious :-)
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    


