Do Robots Deserve Rights? What if Machines Become Conscious?

 

 

What shall we do once machines become conscious? Do we need to grant them rights?

 

 

 

Vocabulary 

sentient (adj.) - able to perceive or feel things.
entitled (adj.) - believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
dominate (v.) - have a commanding influence on; exercise control over.
automaton (n.) - a moving mechanical device made in imitation of a human being.
repugnant (adj.) - extremely distasteful; unacceptable.
perpetrator (n.) - a person who carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act.
sufficient (adj.) - enough; adequate.
dismantle (v.) - take (a machine or structure) to pieces.

 

 

 

Questions

Do you think robots will ever become sentient?
What do you think about a freethinking robot or AI? Would you have any concerns?
Do robots deserve rights if they become freethinking?
What makes something deserving of rights?
The video says "Our whole human identity is based on exceptionalism — that we are special unique snowflakes entitled to dominate the natural world". Why do you think people might think this way?
What do you think consciousness is? How do you identify something as having consciousness?

 

 

 

 

 Transcript

Do Robots Deserve Rights? What if Machines Become Conscious?

Time	Subtitle	Machine Translation
2s	Imagine a future where your toaster anticipates  what kind of toast you want.	토스터가 원하는 토스트 종류를 예상하는미래를 상상해 보십시오.
7s	During the day, it scans the Internet for new and  exciting types of toast.	낮에는 인터넷에서 새롭고 흥미로운 유형의토스트를 검색합니다.
11s	Maybe it asks you about your day, and wants to chat  about new achievements in toast technology.	하루 일정을 묻고 토스트 기술의 새로운성과에 대해 이야기하고 싶을 수도 있습니다.
17s	At what level would it become a person?	어느 정도에 이르면사람이 되는가?
20s	At which point will you ask yourself if your toaster has  feelings?	토스터에 감정이 있는지 어느 시점에서 스스로에게 물어보시겠습니까?
24s	If it did, would unplugging it be murder?	그렇다면 플러그를 뽑는 것은 살인입니까?
27s	And would you still own it? Will we someday be forced  to give our machines rights?	그리고 당신은 여전히​​그것을 소유 하시겠습니까? 언젠가는 기계에 권리를 부여해야할까요?
43s	AI is already all around you.	AI는 이미 우리 주변에 있습니다.
45s	It makes sure discounters are stocked with enough  snacks,	할인점에 충분한 간식이 있는지 확인하고
48s	it serves you up just the right Internet ad, and you may have even read a new story written entirely by a  machine.	올바른 인터넷 광고를제공하며 완전히 기계로 작성된 새로운 이야기를 읽을 수도 있습니다.
55s	Right now we look at chat bots like Siri and laugh at  their primitive simulated emotions,	지금 우리는 시리 같은 챗봇을 보고 그들의 원초적인 모의 감정에 비웃지만, 현실과 모의 ​​인간 사이에
1:01	but it's likely that we will have to deal with beings that make it hard to draw the line	선을 긋기 어렵게 만드는 존재들을 상대해야 할 것 같다
1:05	between real and simulated humanity.	.
1:08	Are there any machines in existence that deserve  rights?	권리를 가질 자격이있는 기계가 존재합니까?
1:12	Most likely, not yet. But if they come, we are not  prepared for it.	아마도 아직은 아닙니다. 그러나 그들이 온다면 우리는 그것에대해 준비가 되어 있지 않습니다.
1:18	Much of the philosophy of rights is ill-equipped to deal  with the case of Artificial Intelligence.	권리 철학의 대부분은인공 지능의 사례를다루기에 적합하지 않습니다.
1:23	Most claims for right, with a human or animal, are  centered around the question of consciousness.	인간이나 동물에 대한권리에 대한 대부분의주장은 의식의 문제를중심으로 이루어집니다.
1:29	Unfortunately, nobody knows what consciousness is.	불행히도 의식이 무엇인지 아는 사람은 아무도 없습니다.
1:33	Some think that it's immaterial, others say it's a state  of matter, like gas or liquid.	어떤 사람들은 그것이중요하지 않다고 생각하고 다른 사람들은가스나 액체와 같은물질의 상태라고 말합니다.
1:39	Regardless of the precise definition, we have an  intuitive knowledge of consciousness because we  experience it.	정확한 정의와 상관없이 우리는 의식을 경험하기 때문에 의식에대한 직관적인 지식을가지고 있습니다.
1:45	We are aware of ourselves and our surroundings, and know what unconsciousness feels like.	우리는 자신과 주변환경을 인식하고 무의식이 어떤 느낌인지알고 있습니다.
1:51	Some neuroscientists believe that any sufficiently  advanced system can generate consciousness.	일부 신경과학자들은충분히 발전된 시스템은 의식을 생성할 수있다고 믿습니다.
1:57	So, if your toaster's hardware was powerful enough,  it may become self-aware.	따라서 토스터의 하드웨어가 충분히 강력하다면 스스로 인식할수 있습니다.
2:02	If it does, would it deserve rights?	그렇다면 권리를 가질자격이 있습니까?
2:05	Well, not so fast. Would what we define as "rights"  make sense to it?	글쎄, 그렇게 빠르지는 않아. 우리가 "권리"로 정의하는 것이의미가 있습니까?
2:11	Consciousness entitles beings to have rights because  it gives a being the ability to suffer.	의식은 존재에게 고통받을 수 있는 능력을부여하기 때문에 존재에게 권리를 부여합니다.
2:17	It means the ability to not only feel pain, but to be  aware of it.	그것은 고통을 느낄수 있을 뿐만 아니라그것을 자각할 수 있는 능력을 의미합니다.
2:22	Robots don't suffer, and they probably won't unless  we programmed them to.	로봇은 고통을 겪지않으며, 우리가 프로그래밍하지 않는 한고통을 겪지 않을 것입니다.
2:27	Without pain or pleasure, there's no preference,  and rights are meaningless.	고통이나 즐거움이 없으면 우선권도 없고권리도 무의미합니다.
2:32	Our human rights are deeply tied to our own  programming, for example we dislike pain	우리의 인권은 우리자신의 프로그래밍과깊이 연관되어 있습니다. 예를 들어 우리의
2:38	because our brains evolved to keep us alive.	두뇌는 우리를 살리기위해 진화했기 때문에우리는 고통을 싫어합니다.
2:41	To stop us from touching a hot fire, or to make us run  away from predators.	우리가 뜨거운 불에닿는 것을 막거나, 포식자로부터 도망치게하기 위해.
2:46	So we came up with rights that protect us from  infringements that cause us pain.	그래서 우리는 우리에게 고통을 주는 침해로부터 우리를 보호할권리를 생각해 냈습니다.
2:51	Even more abstract rights like freedom are rooted in  the way our brains are wired	자유와 같은 훨씬 더추상적인 권리는
2:56	to detect what is fair and unfair.	무엇이 공정하고 불공평한지 감지하도록 뇌가 연결되어 있는 방식에 뿌리를 두고 있습니다.
3:00	Would a toaster that is unable to move, mind being  locked in a cage?	움직일 수 없는 토스터가 정신이 새장에갇히게 될까요?
3:04	Would it mind being dismantled, if it had no fear of  death?	죽음에 대한 두려움이없다면 해체해도 괜찮을까요?
3:08	Would it mind being insulted, if it had no need for  self-esteem?	자존심이 필요 없다면모욕을 받아도 괜찮겠습니까?
3:13	But what if we programmed the robot to feel pain and  emotions?	하지만 로봇이 고통과감정을 느끼도록 프로그램한다면 어떨까요?
3:17	To prefer justice over injustice, pleasure over pain and be aware of it?	불의보다 정의를, 고통보다 쾌락을 선호하고 그것을 자각하기위해?
3:22	Would that make them sufficiently human?	그것이 그들을 충분히인간적으로 만들까요?
3:25	Many technologists believe that an explosion in  technology would occur,	많은 기술자들은
3:29	when Artificial Intelligence can learn and create their  own Artificial Intelligences,	인공 지능이 자신보다더 똑똑한 자신의 인공 지능을 배우고 만들 수 있을 때 기술의폭발이 일어날 것이라고 믿습니다
3:34	even smarter than themselves.	.
3:36	At this point, the question of how our robots are  programmed will be largely out of our control.	이 시점에서 우리 로봇이 어떻게 프로그래밍되는지에 대한 질문은 우리가 통제할 수없는 부분이 될 것입니다. 진화
3:42	What if an Artificial Intelligence found it necessary to  program the ability to feel pain,	생물학이 대부분의 생명체에게 필요하다고생각한 것처럼 인공지능이 고통을 느끼는능력을 프로그래밍하는 것이 필요하다고생각한다면 어떨까요
3:47	just as evolutionary biology found it necessary in most  living creatures?	?
3:52	Do robots deserve those rights?	로봇은 그러한 권리를가질 자격이 있습니까?
3:54	But maybe we should be less worried about the risk  that super-intelligent robots pose to us,	하지만 아마도 우리는초지능 로봇이 우리에게 가하는 위험에 대해 덜 걱정
3:59	and more worried about the danger we pose to them.	하고 우리가 그들에게가하는 위험에 대해더 걱정해야 할 것입니다.
4:03	Our whole human identity is based on the idea of  human exceptionalism,	우리 인간의 모든 정체성은 우리가 자연계를 지배할 자격이 있는 특별하고 독특한눈송이라는 인간 예외주의의 개념에 기반을두고 있습니다
4:07	that we are special unique snowflakes, entitled to  dominate the natural world.	.
4:12	Humans have a history of denying that other beings  are capable of suffering as they do.	인간은 다른 존재가자신처럼 고통받을 수있다는 사실을 부정한역사를 가지고 있습니다.
4:17	In the midst of the Scientific Revolution, René  Descartes argued animals were mere automata― robots if you will.	과학 혁명의 한복판에서 르네 데카르트는동물이 단순한 자동장치, 즉 로봇에 불과하다고 주장했습니다.
4:25	As such, injuring a rabbit was about as morally  repugnant as punching a stuffed animal.	이와 같이 토끼를 다치게 하는 것은 박제동물을 주먹으로 때리는 것만큼이나 도덕적으로 혐오스러운 일이었습니다.
4:30	And many of the greatest crimes against humanity  were justified by their perpetrators	그리고 인류에 대한가장 큰 범죄 중 다수는
4:35	on the grounds that the victims were more animal than civilized human.	피해자가 문명화된 인간보다 동물에 더 가깝다는 이유로 가해자에 의해 정당화되었습니다.
4:40	Even more problematic is that we have an economic  interest in denying robot rights.	더 문제는 우리가 로봇 권리를 부정하는데 경제적 이익이 있다는 것입니다.
4:45	If can coerce a sentient AI―possibly through programmed torture―into doing as we please,	프로그래밍된 고문을통해 인공 지능이 우리가 원하는 대로 하도록 강요할 수 있다면
4:51	the economic potential is unlimited.	경제적 잠재력은 무한합니다.
4:53	We've done it before, after all.	결국 우리는 전에 그것을 해왔습니다.
4:56	Violence has been used to force our fellow humans  into working.	폭력은 동료 인간이일하도록 강요하는 데사용되었습니다.
4:59	And we've never had trouble coming up with  ideological justifications.	그리고 우리는 이데올로기적 정당성을 찾는데 어려움을 겪은 적이 없습니다.
5:04	Slave owners argued that slavery benefited the slaves: it put a roof over their head and taught them  Christianity.	노예 소유주들은 노예제도가 노예들에게 이익이 된다고 주장했습니다. 그것은 그들의머리 위에 지붕을 씌우고 그들에게 기독교를 가르쳤습니다.
5:12	Men who were against women voting argued that it  was in women's own interest to leave the hard  decisions to men.	여성 투표에 반대하는남성들은 어려운 결정을 남성에게 맡기는것이 여성 자신의 이익에 부합한다고 주장했습니다.
5:19	Farmers argue that looking after animals and feeding  them justifies their early death for our dietary  preferences.	농부들은 동물을 돌보고 먹이를 주는 것이우리의 식습관 때문에일찍 죽는 것을 정당화한다고 주장합니다.
5:27	If robots become sentient, there will be no shortage of arguments for those who say	로봇이 지각력을 가지게 된다면,
5:32	that they should remain without rights, especially from  those who stand to profit from it.	권리 없이 남아 있어야 한다고 주장하는사람들, 특히 그것으로부터 이익을 얻으려는 사람들로부터 논쟁이 끊이지 않을 것입니다.
5:37	Artificial Intelligence raises serious questions about  philosophical boundaries.	인공 지능은 철학적경계에 대한 심각한질문을 제기합니다.
5:42	What we may ask if sentient robots are conscious or  deserving of rights,	지각 있는 로봇이 의식이 있는지 또는 권리를 가질 자격이 있는지 물어볼 수 있는것은
5:46	it forces us to pose basic questions like, what makes  us human? What makes us deserving of rights?	무엇이 우리를 인간으로 만드는가와 같은기본적인 질문을 제기하도록 강요합니다. 우리가 권리를 가질자격이 있는 이유는무엇입니까?
5:54	Regardless of what we think, the question might need  to be resolved in the near future.	우리가 어떻게 생각하든 가까운 장래에 문제를 해결해야 할 수도 있습니다.
5:59	What are we going to do if robots start demanding  their own rights?	로봇이 자신의 권리를요구하기 시작하면 어떻게 될까요?
6:07	What can robots demanding rights teach us about  ourselves?	권리를 요구하는 로봇이 우리 자신에 대해무엇을 가르쳐 줄 수있습니까?
6:10	Our friends at Wisecrack made a video exploring this  very question using the philosophy of Westworld.	Wisecrack의 친구들은 Westworld의 철학을 사용하여 바로이 질문을 탐구하는비디오를 만들었습니다.
6:16	Wisecrack dissects pop culture in a unique and  philosophical way.	Wisecrack은 독특하고 철학적인 방식으로대중문화를 분석합니다.
6:21	Click here to check out the video and subscribe to  their channel.	동영상을 확인하고 채널을 구독하려면 여기를 클릭하세요.