Robot Marriage

[rogue06]

Who in all honesty didn't see this coming...

Source: A.I. Thee Wed

Humans should be able to marry robots.New York TimesHer and Ex Machina, the AMC drama series HumansLove and Sex With RobotshereSource

© Copyright Original Source

The article continues at the link above and was written by the Lincoln professor of emerging technologies, law, and ethics and faculty director of the Center for Law, Science, and Innovation at Arizona State University.

As I said, who didn't see it coming? facepalm3.gif

[Starlight]

Prior to the Supreme court decision, there were predictions of a slippery slope...
After the Supreme court decision, there are predictions of a slippery slope...


You can't seriously be claiming "we were right!" due to the fact that people are still predicting slippery slopes. You're leaving out the part where the slippery slope has to actually happen in order for you to be right. Telling yourself how right you were because your past predictions are confirmed by your own present predictions is just sad.

[seer]

I'm busy designing the perfect wife as we speak!

[rogue06]

Prior to the Supreme court decision, there were predictions of a slippery slope...
After the Supreme court decision, there are predictions of a slippery slope...


You can't seriously be claiming "we were right!" due to the fact that people are still predicting slippery slopes. You're leaving out the part where the slippery slope has to actually happen in order for you to be right. Telling yourself how right you were because your past predictions are confirmed by your own present predictions is just sad.

The point is that we are now see calls for the "right" to marry robots and not from some lunatics with a loose screw but a professor from a noted... university... Okay, maybe still a lunatic with a loose screw.

I guess before now one could predict a slippery slope whereas now you can actually see the terrain slopping down and the footing getting slick.

[Sam]

The point is that we are now see calls for the "right" to marry robots and not from some lunatics with a loose screw but a professor from a noted... university... Okay, maybe still a lunatic with a loose screw.

I guess before now one could predict a slippery slope whereas now you can actually see the terrain slopping down and the footing getting slick.

The triggering factor will be machine AI. If and when androids have human-level intelligence, the case for android rights will be strong, and that will include the right to marriage.

Without human-level intelligence, there's no consent and therefore no right to marriage. No Roomba weddings.

[Sparko]

Hey people have married dolphins and cars, so robots would be nothing new. Although, what do you do when your robot decides to file for divorce and demands alimony?

[Kristian Joensen]

Here is a logically valid argument based only on premises that are either accepted by SCOTUS, irrefutable due to references to subjective psycic states of an individual or obviously true:

1. I should be able to marry whom I want and have that marriage recognized by the law so long as both parties consent.
2. I want to marry a robot.
3. The robot consents.
Conclusion: I should be able to marry the robot and have that marriage recognized by the law.

Premise 1 was accepted by SCOTUS. Premise 2 is a true subjective fact. Premise 3 follows obviously from the fact that I programmed the robot to consent. So it would seem that the conclusion follows. The questionable step(premise 1) was taken by SCOTUS not me.

[Sam]

Here is a logically valid argument based only on premises that are either accepted by SCOTUS, irrefutable due to references to subjective psycic states of an individual or obviously true:

1. I should be able to marry whom I want and have that marriage recognized by the law so long as both parties consent.
2. I want to marry a robot.
3. The robot consents.
Conclusion: I should be able to marry the robot and have that marriage recognized by the law.

Premise 1 was accepted by SCOTUS. Premise 2 is a true subjective fact. Premise 3 follows obviously from the fact that I programmed the robot to consent. So it would seem that the conclusion follows. The questionable step(premise 1) was taken by SCOTUS not me.

Premise 3 ("The robot consents.") necessarily implies autonomy equivalent to a human. One cannot simply program consent. If I were to program a basic program to respond "Yes!" when I type "Do you like apples?", that doesn't mean the program actually likes apples.

Assuming a human-level AI, I think the above argument is sound, though.

[Sparko]

Premise 3 ("The robot consents.") necessarily implies autonomy equivalent to a human. One cannot simply program consent. If I were to program a basic program to respond "Yes!" when I type "Do you like apples?", that doesn't mean the program actually likes apples.

Assuming a human-level AI, I think the above argument is sound, though.

Why would you need consent from an object in the first place? If it is not sentient, then no consent is needed since consent would only be needed to protect the rights of another sentient individual.

[Sam]

Why would you need consent from an object in the first place? If it is not sentient, then no consent is needed since consent would only be needed to protect the rights of another sentient individual.

Same reason you can't marry your broom right now: marriage is a contract and contracts require consenting parties.

[seer]

Same reason you can't marry your broom right now: marriage is a contract and contracts require consenting parties.

We need to be more progressive and leave those retrograde distinctions behind...

[Sparko]

Same reason you can't marry your broom right now: marriage is a contract and contracts require consenting parties.

Is that so? So how do you explain this?

http://tinyurl.com/2fcpre6

[Irate Canadian]

Premise 3 ("The robot consents.") necessarily implies autonomy equivalent to a human. One cannot simply program consent. If I were to program a basic program to respond "Yes!" when I type "Do you like apples?", that doesn't mean the program actually likes apples.

Assuming a human-level AI, I think the above argument is sound, though.

That begs the question, "why would someone want to marry a robot?"

[Sparko]

That begs the question, "why would someone want to marry a robot?"

For it's money.

[Sam]

That begs the question, "why would someone want to marry a robot?"

At some point in the future, robots will be relatively indistinguishable from people. Before then, a machine AI will have as little difficulty passing even a very complex Turing test as a human. Asking why someone would want to marry a robot will progressively become essentially the same question as why someone would want to marry a human.