Social Robots May Gain Legal Rights, Says MIT Researcher 288
dcblogs writes "Social robots — machines with the ability to do grocery shopping, fix dinner and discuss the day's news — may gain limited rights, similar to those granted to pets. Kate Darling, a research specialist at the MIT Media Lab, looks at this broad issue in a recent paper, 'Extending Legal Rights to Social Robots.' 'The Kantian philosophical argument for preventing cruelty to animals is that our actions towards non-humans reflect our morality — if we treat animals in inhumane ways, we become inhumane persons. This logically extends to the treatment of robotic companions. Granting them protection may encourage us and our children to behave in a way that we generally regard as morally correct, or at least in a way that makes our cohabitation more agreeable or efficient.' If a company can make a robot that leaves the factory with rights, the marketing potential, as Darling notes, may be significant."
Re:No. No. Fuck no. (Score:2, Informative)
You haven't "bitten", since you didn't answer my question.
But in any case, just because it doesn't work for your car doesn't mean it doesn't work for anything. TFA is about social robots, not dumb cars.
Take the Tamagotchi; even for a crude device like it was, back then there were many kids (and some not-so-kids) who felt a real emotional connection to the machine. In fact, during v1 - when the thing couldn't be paused - there were actually people making money by babysitting them.
Now, you may think that's just because they're kids and/or crazy people, but I think it takes a great lack of imagination not to see how one could become emotionally attached enough to a sufficiently advanced social robot, enough to support giving them rights.