Robot rights and wrongs

‘‘Let’s say you use a robot to buy flowers but instead it buys a car on your credit card . . . Are you responsible for the purchase? ’’

In a world not too dissimilar to ours, robots could be our co-workers, carers – and even our companions.

The rapid development of artificial intelligence – or machine intelligence – is set to have a major impact on everyday lives and could see robots given the same protections as a citizen, says Waikato University student Mauricio Kimura.

The PhD law student is examining whether robots can have the rights and responsibilities of a legal person.

Giving a non-human entity the rights of a legal personality isn’t without precedent, Kimura said.

In 2017, the Whanganui River gained its own legal identity with all the corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a person.

Mt Taranaki is currently the subject of Treaty of Waitangi negotiations which will see it become a legal personality.

‘‘There is research which predicts by 2025 there will be an explosion in the development of artificial intelligence and robots will be able to program themselves and learn how to answer questions without us telling them what to do,’’ Kimura said.

‘‘There will be this singularity and it would be wise if we prepare a legal framework to put these machines into.’’

In Japan, robots are popular as carers and are widely regarded as members of the family.

‘‘Japan hasn’t introduced laws protecting robots but if a person’s robot was to die for some reason, you’ll find the owners will bury it and pray and cry over it,’’ Kimura said.

Both the European Union and the United Nations are currently exploring possible legal frameworks and charters for robots. As with human rights, major discrepancies could emerge between countries regarding the rights afforded to robots.

In the 1942 short story Runaround, Isaac Asimov penned the three laws of robotics. The first states a robot must not harm a human or, through inaction, allow a person to come to harm. ‘‘Those three laws were the beginning of this whole thing but we need to create a full set, a code. Because New Zealand is part of the Commonwealth, a lot of our laws are based on precedent,’’ Kimura said.

‘‘Let’s say you use a robot to buy flowers but instead it buys a car on your credit card. Despite giving clear instructions, the machine makes a mistake. Are you responsible for the purchase or can the purchase be reversed? That’s why we need more case law to set things up.’’

Waikato University student Mauricio Kimura