[aiethics] Thought experiment: Punishment of robots...

[Chris Fahey]

Alicebot AI Ethics Committee - http://www.alicebot.org


> How should a robot that commits murder be punished then?=20

  IMHO, your question *ought to be* considered absolutely absurd. The =
only
thing that makes it not completely ridiculous is that we humans still
subscribe, in general, to the idea that punishment (particularly the =
death
penalty) is a good way to control behavior. The discussion of bot =
criminal
justice hits at the core of our own criminal justics beliefs.

  First, you're beginning with the assumption that a bot is a
self-determined sentient being like we are, which of course it is not =
(yet).
If Alice killed somebody, Dr. Wallace would face murder charges, not =
Alice.
But in the future, the degree of human responsibility for bot actions is
bound to change, so let's discuss that:

  Every weakness in criminal justice systems for human beings can be =
easily
defeated by a bot:
    1 - Fear of punishment is rarely on the mind of a hardened human
criminal or a desperate person, anyway. This fear can be erased in a =
bot.
    2 - Prison sentences and forced labor are meant to force a human =
think
about their crimes. Bots don't need to think about anything for any =
duration
they want.
    3 - Humans experience pain of punishment differently. Bots don't =
need to
experience it at all.
    4 - The "victims rights" movement is often dissatisfied with even =
the
harshest sentences - they will hardly get their 'revenge' satisfaction =
on a
bot.
    etc...

 In all, the argument of 'punishment versus rehabilitation' for humans =
is
given another dimension when you discuss bots. Ultimately, much of the =
way
criminal justice is perceived is based on a human belief that our brains =
are
NOT just machines, that there is a "soul" of some sort, evil or good, =
that
controls our behavior. In this belief system, rehabilitation of the =
brain is
besides the point - revenge and penitence are spiritual activities that =
act
upon the souls of criminals and victims alike, and punishment is the =
sole
tool of that action.=20

 It's obvious that a mass-murdering homicidal bot could be easily
reprogrammed to become a brain surgeon or a babysitter, but it's not so
obvious (or even remotely ethical!) to reprogram humans! A prison =
sentence
or a public whipping are examples of the kind of blunt instruments we =
use to
induce self-reprogramming in humans. In some (probably rare) cases this =
kind
of behavioral modification works I suppose, but it's clearly a crude =
method.

 Now, the death penalty: Executing a human works to the extent that it
really does totally guarantee that he/she won't commit a crime ever =
again
But such elimination is impossible with a bot: You can delete the HD, =
smash
the exoskeleton, or beam the mainframe into the sun - the bot could =
still
back itself up thousands of times across a network, even without wires.
Elimination of a bot is going to be a problem, but it's clear that even
nailing down a bot to reprogram it will be a problem. Clearly our
traditional way of holding a human "responsible" for a "crime" will not =
be
adequate.

Here are some other kinds of malicious bots in the future:
1) Viruses - From scripts that clog your email program, to programs that
embezzle money, to massive trojan horses that cut off life support in
hospitals or disable a nation's military infrastructure, viruses will =
always
be with us and will usually be the responsibility of their creators =
(human
or not!).

2) Social Manipulators - Bots that slander or libel people to enable its =
own
social ambitions, whose crimes are neither physical nor financial, but
rather sociological. Imagine a Joe McCarthy robot.=20

3) The Borg - what happens when a group of bots have some degree of
individuality, but also have a collective identity, or even a heirarchy =
of
collective identities? A decision to commit a crime may be made by an
individual, a subgroup, or by the whole group. Which entitity would you =
hold
responsible for a single criminal act? Conspiracy, racketeering, and war
crime laws address such issues for humans, but will they work for bots? =
For
example, Nazi war criminals were held responsible for their crimes as
individuals and for the actions of their subordinates. But in a machine
collective, bots might be held responsible for actions of their =
'innocent'
peers if their decisions were made as a group (which can, of course, =
never
be proven of human war criminals).

-Cf



-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Dro=DFmann
To: Alicebot AI Ethics Committee
Sent: 6/15/2001 6:18 PM
Subject: [aiethics] Thought experiment: Punishment of robots...

Alicebot AI Ethics Committee - http://www.alicebot.org


Hi!

Just a little thought experiment that came to my twisted mind about an
hour
ago...

We talked about holding robots responsible for things they do...what
about
this:

The United States still have death penalty in some states as a means of
punishing serious crimes like murder for example.
Let's assume death penalty is still an option in a time in the future
when
we have intelligent robots with a conscience...
How should a robot that commits murder be punished then? Lethal
injection,
hanging or the gas chamber are not an option for obvious reasons...the
electric chair might work in some cases...a firing squad might work as
long
as the robot's material is not bulletproof (thing of the case the G3-Mac
came with...it actually WAS bulletproof!)...or would we need to invent a
new
method for the execution of a murderous robot? Death by formatting the
harddisk (or any other media the bot's mind is saved on)? How could one
kill
a robot?
And how would one keep a robot in "robot death row" prior to his
execution?
Would depriving him from any network connection mean "prison" for a
robot?

Any thoughts?

Christian