Robot Rights? Let's Talk about Human Welfare Instead (2001.05046v1)

Abstract: The 'robot rights' debate, and its related question of 'robot responsibility', invokes some of the most polarized positions in AI ethics. While some advocate for granting robots rights on a par with human beings, others, in a stark opposition argue that robots are not deserving of rights but are objects that should be our slaves. Grounded in post-Cartesian philosophical foundations, we argue not just to deny robots 'rights', but to deny that robots, as artifacts emerging out of and mediating human being, are the kinds of things that could be granted rights in the first place. Once we see robots as mediators of human being, we can understand how the `robots rights' debate is focused on first world problems, at the expense of urgent ethical concerns, such as machine bias, machine elicited human labour exploitation, and erosion of privacy all impacting society's least privileged individuals. We conclude that, if human being is our starting point and human welfare is the primary concern, the negative impacts emerging from machinic systems, as well as the lack of taking responsibility by people designing, selling and deploying such machines, remains the most pressing ethical discussion in AI.

• The paper challenges the legitimacy of extending rights to robots by emphasizing a necessary focus on human welfare and real-world ethical issues in AI.
• It utilizes a post-Cartesian phenomenological framework to illustrate that human lived experiences are fundamental to ethical technology design.
• The study highlights systemic problems in AI, including bias, privacy invasions, and exploitative labor practices, calling for accountability among designers and policymakers.

A Critical Examination of the Robot Rights Debate in the Context of AI Ethics

The paper "Robot Rights? Let's Talk about Human Welfare Instead" by Abeba Birhane and Jelle van Dijk presents a critical analysis of the ongoing discussion about robot rights and positions this debate within a larger discourse on AI ethics and human welfare. The authors challenge the legitimacy of granting rights to robots by critiquing the underlying assumptions of this discourse, emphasizing a shift of focus towards human-centric ethical concerns.

Examination of Robot Rights

The paper opens with a contemplation of the polarized opinions that dominate the robot rights debate. On one side, proponents argue for granting rights to robots, based on their potential to exhibit similar agency to humans. This perspective is often rooted in materialistic, techno-optimistic worldviews. On the opposing front, critics dismiss the notion of robot rights altogether, with some even proposing to consider robots as mere tools or slaves. The authors highlight that this debate often overlooks more immediate ethical concerns affecting humans, particularly those most vulnerable in society.

Post-Cartesian Phenomenological Perspective

A key theoretical foundation of the paper is the post-Cartesian, phenomenological perspective on human-technology interaction. Birhane and van Dijk argue that human beings are defined by their lived, embodied experiences, deeply enmeshed in socio-technological networks. From this standpoint, robots are seen neither as entities capable of possessing rights nor as beings that could be dehumanized by being labeled as slaves, since they lack the lived experience characteristic of human beings.

Counterargument to Robot as Slave

The authors refute the idea that robots should be treated as slaves by employing an analysis analogous to the Milgram obedience experiment. They suggest that while robots could simulate obedience, there is no actual injustice done to a robot as a machine, unlike the real harm experienced in human contexts. They argue that the consequence of treating robots as slaves is more reflective of problematic societal practices than any ethical obligation towards the robots themselves.

Focus on Human-Centric Ethical Concerns

Birhane and van Dijk pivot the discussion towards pressing human-centric concerns, criticizing the allurement of speculative future AI sentience at the expense of addressing tangible issues borne out of current AI applications. These concerns include systemic bias inherent in AI systems, the erosion of privacy, and the exploitative labor practices underpinning supposedly autonomous technologies.

1. Bias and Discrimination: They argue that AI systems have a propensity to perpetuate existing societal biases and discrimination, disproportionately affecting marginalized and disadvantaged groups. They reference multiple studies elucidating examples of racial and gender biases prevalent in AI-driven decision-making processes.
2. Privacy Invasion: The paper highlights the pervasive invasion of privacy facilitated by AI, particularly in surveillance capitalism, where data about individuals is continually harvested and exploited by corporate interests.
3. Human Labor Exploitation: It is noted that the development and maintenance of AI are heavily reliant on low-paid and often invisible human labor, debunking the myth of fully autonomous systems.

Responsibilities of Humans Designing AI

In conclusion, the authors argue for an ethical framework centered around human welfare, insisting that attention be redirected to those impacted by AI technologies. They assert that accountability should reside with the designers, policymakers, and users of AI, rather than deflecting responsibility to the machines themselves. By advocating for a more embodied understanding of technology's role in society, Birhane and van Dijk provide a compelling case for refocusing AI ethics towards fostering human dignity and addressing real-world inequalities.

In summary, the paper critiques the notion of robot rights by situating AI ethics within a broader discourse on human welfare, highlighting the immediate issues AI poses to society's most vulnerable individuals, and urging a reevaluation of the responsibilities of creators and deployers of AI systems.