National Post (National Edition)
The philosophy of robots
Re: I, For One, Welcome Our Robot Overlords, Chris Knight, May 2. It’s not reasonable to compare artificial intelligence (AI) or robots to human children. Humans evolved in nature. We still reproduce by means of an evolved biological process, which we have largely come to understand, but have little control over and certainly did not invent. Our very recent tinkering with IVF, incubation and, perhaps in the future, genetic manipulation or even synthetic DNA, have given us some control over the process, but basic design, materials and mechanisms used to reproduce evolved naturally. A robot, on the other hand, is an in- dustrial product — even one that is self-aware or smarter than us. Even a robot built by another robot was originally designed by man. Nature provided only minerals in the ground. Human intent, design and labour invented the hardware and software.
Humans do not therefore “create” our children the way we might build robots or program AIs. The former are beings with rights, whose parents have legitimate authority to train and protect them. The latter are property, even if they can beat us at chess or perform Shakespeare with apparent feeling. There need be no confusion.
Graham Barnes, Ottawa. I half expected today’s newspaper to spontaneously combust as I read the letters concerning Omar Khadr’s potential release on bail. These people are really angry.
According to your letter writers, Khadr is a “terrorist” who “should be jailed for life”; his citizenship should be revoked; he is “irreversibly evil”; “the personification of treasonous, unrepentant, driven evil”; and “a convicted war criminal.” Apparently, he “should not be entitled to any civil rights,” he and his family should be stripped of their citizenship and deported, in the view of one reader, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s “executive privilege.” Well, so much for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the judicial branch.
One letter writer says the fact that Khadr was 15 years old at the time and following his father means nothing since “he was not conscripted to fight against his will.” Would this reader feel the same if a 15-year-old claimed to have had consen- sual sex with a 35-year-old? Or would this letter writer say the child could not knowingly have consented to the act, especially if led to it by someone in a position of authority and influence, such as a father? Of course not. This reader would consider the child blameless. That’s why we have laws to protect children: we believe they are not capable of making certain choices freely. Thank God we also have laws to protect us from the mob!
Bill Kerson, Toronto.