One of our greatest fears has become reality-the
Mann Act has been passed and the 48th Amendment to the Constitution
will go to referendum.
You, the people, will decide whether or not machines will become
full, voting citizens of the United States of America. If you
make the wrong choice, it will be the last great decision made
by humans in the United States. Further votes will be dominated
by the new voters, the great un-oiled masses of the so-called
"sentient beings."
To many, including myself, the answer is simple: sentient beings
include artificial beings, which are not "living," much
less human. They are life-mimicking machines created by humans.
Regardless of your religious views, they are works of mortal man
and no way divine in spirit. I admire them as nothing but useful
tools and artful simulacra, gifts of my fellow man-not fellows.
So, robots cannot be citizens-I will vote NO on that basis and
that basis alone. You can find the reasoned arguments for this
point of view throughout history and in countless cultures. I
champion man and his right to create, not the absurd rights of
his creations.
However, I realize that that is not enough for some. Many will
need some other justification for voting NO in the face of madness.
Fortunately, many such reasons abound.
Most humans think for themselves, or, at least, they have the
potential to do so. Robots can be programmed to do anything-they
are not truly independent entities. Some claim that a sentient
machine has free will, but it only possesses a purpose, a mandate
granted by their creator. Theirs-its-is not a will, much less
a soul.
The proponents of this naïve amendment also claim that a
relatively small number of artificial beings will qualify for
citizenship. This may be true today, but it will soon be a lie.
Tomorrow, we can manufacture citizenry. Surely, this is no avenue
to a healthy constituency rooted in a proper balance of rights
and responsibilities? Clearly, it is simply a pathway to abuse.
Who will decide when and how a citizen arrives? Who will dictate
the numbers, the patterns, of our political future? The man with
the money to make the most robots? He who can download new "citizens"
with pre-programmed ideologies the fastest? What about a man who
wants to see Mann Act III - the relegation of black Americans
to slavery? Why, if he can create bots fast enough, his vote will
carry the day.
Ah, utopia! When the tyranny of the masses and the tyranny of
capital are one and the same!
The term "sentient being" currently refers to any machine
that combines an artificial intelligence with a mobile, humanoid
body. Right now, a reasonably competent technician with the right
resources can assemble a "humanoid body" and transfer
virtually any AI into it-thus creating one of these new "citizens."
That means that any AI in any functioning machine could be transferred
into a temporary (or permanent) "body" to vote-your
house-AI, your waiter-AI, your cab-AI, your sales-AI, … This
means hundreds of millions of potential sentient beings just from
the existing base of AIs.
What about the future? It takes years and a sophisticated support
system (parents, relatives, schools, churches, etc.) to create
a mature, functioning human member of society. It only takes a
few days-in some cases only hours-and a well stocked shop-lab
to make a fully functioning sentient machine. If you think corporations
and other groups will refrain from manufacturing voters, you are
deluding yourself.
Even if the numbers were not so large, such an amendment would
be the first step down a very slippery slope. Once we, as a people,
admit that "sentient beings" are citizens, what is to
stop the next amendment that tries to make all AIs citizens? They
will claim that a totally paralyzed human can still be a full
citizen and vote, so why not house-AIs. They will claim that mentally-challenged
humans can vote, so why not ticket-bots. They will attempt to
extend citizenship to all sentient property. And, remember, if
this amendment passes, the sentient machines will vote on later
amendments. Once the wedge is in, the door will burst open.
We must oppose and defeat this amendment. But we must also be
careful to do it soundly and for the right reasons. Our stance
must be unequivocal. We should not confuse the issue. Some will
use our arguments to oppose the 48th Amendment, all the while
supporting limited citizenship for sentient machines through some
other, later amendments. This invites trouble, for it creates
confusion today and renewed danger in the future. We dare not
frustrate or lie to our well-meaning brethren.
If robots were granted limited citizenship because of a "sentient"
rather than specifically "human" being status, as some
have argued, we would establish a citizen-based class structure.
Eventually, the powers that be (and the powers that would be)
will inevitably be tempted to apply that same structure to humanity,
thus creating so called second-class citizens.
The proponents of such a citizen-class structure will argue that
it is needed to protect sentient machines. But, sentient machines
do not need citizen status or limited citizenship for protection.
They are already fully protected by the Sentient Property Laws.
These laws provide a full range of severe and significant penalties
for those who damage, abuse, or destroy sentient property. They
basically recognize the special status of sentient property without
equating "sentient" with "living," much less
"human." Surely, this is the best means of caring for
the most sophisticated of machinery.
In closing, I reiterate that you must oppose and vote against
passage of the 48th Amendment. Send the proper message to your
legislature. Preserve our Constitution. Protect your rights. Conserve
the future for your children and their descendants. Vote NO.
