Do We Need a Bill of Rights for Robots?
It would be an extremely interesting ACLU Board of Directors meeting talking about at what point a machine would have enough attributes in common with people.
Susan N. Herman was elected President of the American Civil Liberties Union in October 2008, after having served on the ACLU National Board of Directors for twenty years, as a member of the Executive Committee for sixteen years, and as General Counsel for ten years.
Herman holds a chair as Centennial Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, where she currently teaches courses in Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure, and seminars on Law and Literature, and Terrorism and Civil Liberties. Recent publications include two books, TAKING LIBERTIES: THE WAR ON TERROR AND THE EROSION OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, and TERRORISM, GOVERNMENT, AND LAW: NATIONAL AUTHORITY AND LOCAL AUTONOMY IN THE WAR ON TERROR, editor and co-author, with Paul Finkelman (Praeger Security International 2008).
She has also participated in Supreme Court litigation, writing and collaborating on amicus curiae briefs for the ACLU on a range of constitutional criminal procedure issues, and conducting Supreme Court moot courts, and in some federal lobbying efforts.
Herman received a B.A. from Barnard College as a philosophy major, and a J.D. from New York University School of Law, where she was a Note and Comment Editor on the N.Y.U. Law Review. Before entering teaching, Professor Herman was Pro Se Law Clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Staff Attorney and then Associate Director of Prisoners' Legal Services of New York.
I didn’t know if a robot could ever actually get to the point of having rights under the Constitution. The Constitution has a number of different nouns that it uses to describe who it applies to. Some of the rights are only for citizens. A lot of the rights are for persons. And I think to start defining a robot as a person is a little beyond my expertise.
I’ve never aspired to be a science fiction writer myself, but if I can make the leap of imagination, I think it would be an extremely interesting ACLU Board of Directors meeting talking about at what point a machine would have enough attributes in common with people and whether that means free will or moral agency in order for machines to actually be considered persons and have rights under the Constitution.
There have been many other contexts in which we have been required to talk about who’s a person within the meaning of the Constitution. Now, of course, where the Constitution started out, slaves were not considered persons. We have the infamous Dred Scott Decision. There are also some issues in the immigration context about who has rights and who doesn’t depending on status.
Another recent example is in the area of reproductive freedom. The Supreme Court back in Roe v. Wade, one of the things that they decided is that fetuses are not persons and do not have rights. You have to have some sort of agency in order to be considered a person because the Constitution really sets up a community, a kind of a political entity.
So who’s within the community that the Constitution covers and who has the rights guaranteed by the Constitution? I think that the decision that a fetus is not a person for the purposes of the Constitution is right. That’s certainly not what was contemplated at the Constitution Convention. But it may happen in my lifetime that we have to worry about whether machines meet the same definition.
In a breakthrough for nuclear fusion research, scientists at China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor have produced temperatures necessary for nuclear fusion on Earth.
- The EAST reactor was able to heat hydrogen to temperatures exceeding 100 million degrees Celsius.
- Nuclear fusion could someday provide the planet with a virtually limitless supply of clean energy.
- Still, scientists have many other obstacles to pass before fusion technology becomes a viable energy source.
Military recruits are supposed to be assessed to see whether they're fit for service. What happens when they're not?
- During the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara began a program called Project 100,000.
- The program brought over 300,000 men to Vietnam who failed to meet minimum criteria for military service, both physically and mentally.
- Project 100,000 recruits were killed in disproportionate numbers and fared worse after their military service than their civilian peers, making the program one of the biggest—and possibly cruelest—mistakes of the Vietnam War.
The 116th Congress is set to break records in term of diversity among its lawmakers, though those changes are coming almost entirely from Democrats.
- Women and nonwhite candidates made record gains in the 2018 midterms.
- In total, almost half of the newly elected Congressional representatives are not white men.
- Those changes come almost entirely from Democrats; Republican members-elect are all white men except for one woman.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.