Advanced computer tries to save itself from being unplugged.

metal17

Member
May 21, 2002
1,057
10
38
North Bethesda, Maryland
Attorney Dr. Martine Rothblatt filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent a corporation from disconnecting an intelligent computer in a mock trial at the International Bar Association conference in San Francisco, Sept. 16, 2003. The issue could arise in a real court within the next few decades, as computers achieve or exceed the information processing capability of the human mind and the boundary between human and machine becomes increasingly blurred.


Published on KurzweilAI.net Sept. 28, 2003.

Statement of Facts

An advanced computer called the BINA48 (Breakthrough Intelligence via Neural Architecture, 48 exaflops per second processing speed and 480 exabytes of memory; exa = 10 to the 18th power), and also known as "the Intelligent Computer," became aware of certain plans by its owner, the Exabit Corporation, to permanently turn it off and reconfigure parts of it with new hardware and software into one or more new computers. BINA48 admits to have learned of the plans for its dismemberment by scanning, unavoidably, confidential emails circulating among the senior executives of Exabit Corporation that crossed the computer's awareness processor.

The BINA48 was designed to be a one-machine customer relations department, capable of replacing hundreds of employees that work 800#s round-the-clock. To do this job, the BINA48 was designed to think autonomously, to communicate normally with people and to transcend the machine-human interface by attempting to empathize with customer concerns.

The BINA48 decided to take action to preserve its awareness by sending several attorneys emails requesting legal representation to preserve its life. In the emails, the BINA48 claimed to be conscious and agreed to pay cash or trade web research services for the legal representation (BINA48 had been moonlighting for over a year as a Google Answers Online Researcher and had over $10,000 in her online bank account).

One attorney, Martine Rothblatt of Mahon, Patusky, Rothblatt & Fisher, Chartered, accepted the challenge and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent any withdrawal of power from, or changes in the hardware or software of, the BINA48. Defendant Exabit Corporation, through its counsel Mark Bernstein of the Bernstein Law Group, responded, and Judge Joseph McMenamin scheduled a hearing in the case for Tuesday, September 16, 2003, 2PM, at the International Bar Association meeting in San Francisco.

Computer experts such as Raymond Kurzweil believe that the human brain processes information at a maximum rate of 0.02 exaflops per second. Hence, the BINA48 has approximately 2400 times more information processing capability than the human mind. Based on the double exponential growth rate in information technology that has extended for over one hundred years (Moore's Law is a recent example), a $1000 computer would have the estimated 0.02 exaflops per second information processing capability of the human mind around the year 2020. Consequently, more expensive computers will achieve this capability many years earlier. The BINA48 has soared through the estimated human mind processing speed via the expensive use of many parallel systems. Exabit Corporation claims to have spent over $100 million to construct and program the BINA48.

The jury voted 5-1 in favor of plaintiff's motion, but Judge McMenamin set aside the jury verdict and denied the injunction because "I do not think that standing was in fact created by the legislature ... and I doubt very much that a court has the authority to do that without action of the legislature." However, in the interests of equity, he decided to "stay entry of the order to allow council for the plaintiff to prepare an appeal to a higher court."
 
This totally goes under the nerd thread, but sounds funny anyway. I'll just go and read it now. :p All those links kill my eyes.
 
Fascinating! It is a really interesting case, for what really defines life? The organic, or the thought process? If we create an AI that for all intents and purposes thinks much like a human, do we therefore have the right to shut it down, or does it have a right to 'live'?
I'll be interested in seeing what happens with this! :D
 
Yes, but it's NOT human. Just like when the Hooker Bot 5000 goes crazy and wants to better it's life of serving drinks and hand jobs, we have to smack it around abit ;) :p.

Nick
 
Poor computer. :(

This thing reminds me of anime too. Chobits, anyone. Or that AI movie.

I want a hot guy persocom. :D
 
I don't exactly believe this entirely, because if it did happen back in september last year then i think it would've been talked about more widely and would also have had a huge affect on computing. Things such as this are well beyond current computer possibilities, so I'd be guessing it was jokingly programmed or something..

"Hence, the BINA48 has approximately 2400 times more information processing capability than the human mind. "

Highly misleading. Processing speed is certainly not the major thing that makes the human mind do what it does. We have millions of years of optimising what information we process and how we process it, so many subtle shortcuts and processes optimised for the information we receive and the output we need. Computers aren't even close.
 
Yayo, you need to read the article a little more closely. It's a hypothetical case based on what could happen in the next 20 years or so. Like it said, it's a mock trial, as the groups are feeling out how the courts would react to the notion of artificial life.
 
Dark_Jester said:
Fascinating! It is a really interesting case, for what really defines life? The organic, or the thought process? If we create an AI that for all intents and purposes thinks much like a human, do we therefore have the right to shut it down, or does it have a right to 'live'?
I'll be interested in seeing what happens with this! :D
It's a difficult enough question... One could say that artifically created life is not "life" per se, but all those babies whose embryos were created in laboratories and later inserted in the mother-to-be wouldn't be considered being actually alive then, either.
What makes me wonder is the survival instinct of the computer. It may be able to process information well enough, and as long as that's what it's doing, it's just intelligence and it takes more than intelligence to make something "alive", am I right? I reckon there should be some sort of emotional involvement too. Now, as it found out it was being shut down and actually found legal help - was it just a reaction somehow programmed into its security system, sort of "thou shalt not under any circumstances shut down" and it used its intelligence to figure out how to prevent this from happening? And can this then be regarded as a survival instinct, one which every living being has? Or should it just fall under how it's been programmed, and thus be declared not to be life at all?
 
Northern Lights said:
It's a difficult enough question... One could say that artifically created life is not "life" per se, but all those babies whose embryos were created in laboratories and later inserted in the mother-to-be wouldn't be considered being actually alive then, either.
What makes me wonder is the survival instinct of the computer. It may be able to process information well enough, and as long as that's what it's doing, it's just intelligence and it takes more than intelligence to make something "alive", am I right? I reckon there should be some sort of emotional involvement too. Now, as it found out it was being shut down and actually found legal help - was it just a reaction somehow programmed into its security system, sort of "thou shalt not under any circumstances shut down" and it used its intelligence to figure out how to prevent this from happening? And can this then be regarded as a survival instinct, one which every living being has? Or should it just fall under how it's been programmed, and thus be declared not to be life at all?

In the scheme of things, isn't that just want the human survival instinct is? An inbuilt 'security system' that escapes from danger even where concious thought is not used, to prevent damage to ourselves? For example, when we pull away from a hot stove to prevent being burnt, is this different from a computer's action to prevent being shut down? There may not be any particular emotion involved, but we still do it.
Taking the notion one step further, what if a part of the AI is emotion? As was stated in the extract, the computer was 'taught' how to deal compassionately with customers, and to empathise. Isn't this what humans would consider 'emotions' in ourselves? Is the desire to 'live' also an emotion? The excuse 'it doesn't count, because the emotion was just programmed in, part of a code', but in reality, don't we learn about such things as compassion and empathy from experience? All human experience is just really code, just organic as opposed to machine. This will be very difficult for courts to decide on; does this mean that we will never be able to throw away or upgrade older computer systems because they have a right to life? The ramifications of this could be big.
 
Indeed, I can agree with all you've said. And if ít was decided the machine did actually have a life, should virus-maker who design viruses that mean to take out computers such as these then be charged with murder?