In my previous "Next News," I pondered some of the pros and cons of developing superintelligence–artificial intelligence that greatly exceeds the limits of human cognitive capabilities. The possible downside of doing so is familiar to anyone who reads science fiction or goes to sci-fi movies: supersmart machines that try to take over the world or are otherwise harmful to humans. But what if the tables were turned, and the machines were threatened by unfriendly humans? At last month's International Bar Association conference in San Francisco, that was the premise of a mock trial in which lawyers for an intelligent computer sought a preliminary injunction to prevent a corporation from disconnecting it.
Next News: Today's exploration of science and technology
Archive: A comprehensive listing of Next News columns
The fake facts in the case: An advanced computer called the BINA48 (Breakthrough Intelligence via Neural Architecture) learned of plans by its owner, the Exabit Corp., to permanently turn it off and reconfigure it into one or more new computers. The BINA48 was designed to be a one-machine customer relations department, capable of replacing hundreds of employees. To do this job, the machine was designed to think autonomously, communicate normally with customers, and transcend the machine-human interface by empathizing with their concerns. Endowed by designers with a female persona, the BINA48 says she learned of the dismemberment plans inadvertently, by scanning confidential E-mails circulating among the senior executives of Exabit Corp. that crossed her awareness processor.
The computer decided to take action to preserve her awareness. She sent E-mails to several attorneys requesting legal representation. In the E-mails, the BINA48 claimed to be conscious and agreed to pay cash or trade Web research services for the legal representation (the machine had been moonlighting for over a year as a Google Answers Online researcher and had over $10,000 in an online bank account). One attorney accepted 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. A transcript and webcast of the proceeding can be found at the KurzweilAINet Web site.
BINA48's attorney cleverly argued that "an entity that is aware of life enough and its rights to protest their dissolution is certainly entitled to the protection of the law. While my client has the body of a machine, she has the mind of a woman. It's been created by men and women, just as assuredly as all of our minds in this courtroom have been created by men and women; our parents, our teachers, our colleagues ... While she's not a human being per se, neither are corporations, municipalities, and other nonhuman beings which have standing to bring actions before court in the state of California. Indeed, in many regards, an intelligent computer such as the BINA48 is not differently situated than the slaves in the days of yore, who were often not recognized as legal persons but nevertheless ultimately achieved standing to present their claims in court." The defendant's attorney took a strict constructionalist line, arguing that if Congress had wanted computers to have the right to sue, it would have said so. A seven-person jury eventually voted to allow the injunction.
