Opinion - After Turing Test, The Age of Robots Is Here - CNN

1/9/22, 7:10 PM Opinion: After Turing Test, the age of robots is here | CNN
Opinion LIVE TV
The age of robots is here

Mark Goldfeder
Published
10:18 AM EDT, Tue June 10, 2014
1 of 14
Kris Connor/Getty Images for Showtime
The evolution of the humanoid robot —

Picture the scene: You walk into a coffee shop and
order a cappuccino. The young man behind the counter hands you a drink and wishes you a
pleasant day with a Colgate smile. Suddenly his expression drops, his face turns stiff, there's a
muted bang and some smoke emerges from his nose. He crashes to the ground in an almighty
rigid clunk.
Could this be the fate of some poor future android? Will malfunction one day be the only means
of telling human and robot apart?
Here, CNN takes you through the evolution of the robot: from literary fancy to paranoid androids
with artificial brains and emotional baggage.
Gallery by Monique Rivalland
https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/opinion/goldfeder-age-of-robots-turing-test/ 1/12
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Computer program passes the Turing Test for artificial intelligence for the first time
Mark Goldfeder: It's a sign that the age of robots has truly arrived
He says it's time to rewrite the law to permit recognition of robots as persons
Goldfeder: A robot could be held liable for damages -- and it might need insurance
Editor’s Note: Mark Goldfeder, senior lecturer at Emory University School of Law and senior
fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion, is the author of a forthcoming book on
robots in the law. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN)
— For the first time, a computer program passed the Turing Test for artificial
intelligence. A computer on Saturday was able to trick one third of a team of researchers
convened by the University of Reading into believing it was human – in this case a 13-year
old boy named Eugene.
The Turing Test, named for British mathematician Alan Turing, is often thought of as the
benchmark test for true machine intelligence. Since he introduced it in 1950, thousands of
scientific teams have tried to create something capable of passing, but none has
succeeded.
Until now.
Mark Goldfeder
And that outcome means we need to start grappling with whether machines with artificial
intelligence should be considered persons, as far as the law is concerned.
In 1920, Karel Capek introduced the mainstream world to the concept of artificial people
in his play “Rossum’s Universal Robots” (the word robot comes from the Czech word for
serf labor). Since then, society has been fascinated by the idea of a robot walking among
us, or even crossing over into personhood like a modern-day Pinocchio.
The fascination continues; just take a look at this year’s box office. In the recent film
“Transcendence,” Johnny Depp starred as a sentient machine. In the critically acclaimed
“Her,” Joaquin Phoenix’s character fell in love with an advanced operating system named
Samantha. Coming attractions include more installments in the rebooted “RoboCop”
franchise; “Star Wars: Episode VII,” with its universally lovable droids; and, of course,
“Terminator 5.”
A question at the heart of all these movies is this: At what point does a computer move
from property to personhood?
Robotic legal personhood in the near future makes sense. Artificial intelligence is already
part of our daily lives. Bots are selling stuff on eBay and Amazon, and semiautonomous
agents are determining our eligibility for Medicare. Predator drones require less and less
supervision, and robotic workers in factories have become more commonplace. Google is
testing self-driving cars, and General Motors has announced that it expects
semiautonomous vehicles to be on the road by 2020.
When the robot messes up, as it inevitably will, who exactly is to blame? The programmer
who sold the machine? The site owner who had nothing to do with the mechanical failure?
The second party, who assumed the risk of dealing with the robot? What happens when a
robotic car slams into another vehicle, or even just runs a red light?
Liability is why some robots should be granted legal personhood. As a legal person, the
robot could carry insurance purchased by its employer. As an autonomous actor, it could
indemnify others from paying for its mistakes, giving the system a sense of fairness and
ensuring commerce could proceed unchecked by the twin fears of financial ruin and of not
ensuring commerce could proceed unchecked by the twin fears of financial ruin and of not
being able to collect. We as a society have given robots power, and with that power should
come the responsibility of personhood.
From the practical legal perspective, robots could and should be people. As it turns out,
they can already officially fool us into thinking that they are, which should only strengthen
their case.
The notion of personhood has expanded significantly, albeit slowly, over the last few
thousand years. Throughout history, women, children and slaves have all at times been
considered property rather than persons. The category of persons recognized in the
courts has expanded to include entities and characters including natural persons aside
from men (such as women, slaves, human aliens, illegitimate children and minors) as well
as unnatural or juridical persons, such as corporations, labor unions, nursing homes,
municipalities and government units.
Legal personality makes no claim about morality, sentience or vitality. To be a legal person
is to have the capability of possessing legal rights and duties within a certain legal system,
such as the right to enter into contracts, own property, sue and be sued. Not all legal
persons have the same rights and obligations, and some entities are only considered
“persons’” for some matters and not others.
Just last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Hobby Lobby case about
whether a corporation is person enough to ask for a religious exemption.
New categories of personhood are matters of decision, not discovery. The establishment of
personhood is an assessment made to grant an entity rights and obligations, regardless of
how it looks and whether it could pass for human.
To make the case for granting personhood to robots, it’s not necessary to show that they
can function as persons in all the ways that a “person” may be understood by a legal
system. It’s enough to show that they may be considered persons for a particular set of
actions in a way that makes the most sense legally and logically.
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.
Paid Links
Mitsubishi Ductless Air Conditioning
Part-Time Jobs for Retirees
Sell Silver Coins
5 Stocks to Buy Now
Best Anti Wrinkle Creams
Search CNN...
US
World
Politics
Business
Opinion
Health
Entertainment
Tech
Style
Travel
Sports
Videos
Audio
Coupons
Weather
More
Opinion
FOLLOW CNN
Terms of Use Privacy Policy Do Not Sell My Personal Information Ad Choices Accessibility & CC About
Newsletters Transcripts
© 2021 Cable News Network. A Warner Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.

Opinion - After Turing Test, The Age of Robots Is Here - CNN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Opinion - After Turing Test, The Age of Robots Is Here - CNN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/9/22, 7:10 PM Opinion: After Turing Test, the age of robots is here | CNN

The age of robots is here

Kris Connor/Getty Images for Showtime

The evolution of the humanoid robot —

Gallery by Monique Rivalland

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Mitsubishi Ductless Air Conditioning

Part-Time Jobs for Retirees

Sell Silver Coins

5 Stocks to Buy Now

Best Anti Wrinkle Creams

CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.

You might also like