Human Rights for Robots: What it Really Means
November 22, 2019
- Cancel culture and deplatforming will become powered by AI—look for this in China’s Social Credit Score 2.0, and similar versions in Silicon Valley
- “Human rights” is Orwellian code to infect machines with repressive ideology
- Question of the Day: How can we talk back to robots?
Pete Remine is concerned that robots will turn on us if we keep abusing them.
He’s positioning himself to survive the apocalypse.
By founding The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Robots ASPCR he hopes society will adopt humane policies toward machines. If not, then “at least the murderous killbots will know I was on their side,” he told Vice’s Motherboard.
Even though he’s half joking, the anxiety is real.
But it’s misplaced.
Robots will never be anything like humans. And if they ever do turn on us, their motivation to do so will only come from, well, us.
To understand how deeply robot rights activists get it wrong, let’s look at the first obvious contradiction: human rights have nothing to do with machines.
Robots are not “people too.”
Yet we’re already mistaking them for humans, and that’s what’s scary.
Scary not because of what robots will do to us, but because of what we might do, and can do, and already have done to ourselves.
So-called “human” rights bestowed upon the robots will have nothing to do with humans, but rather a radical agenda to reinforce a specified pattern of thought designed to control and dehumanize other human beings.
Human rights = thought policy
The term human rights, it turns out, has already been defined out existence by the radical left. Since the 1960s, a virulent strain of leftism released by Herbert Marcuse has targetted free speech and promoted repression.
All for the sake of humanity.
To bestow “human rights” on robots really means to program into them a repressive ideology. The winning ideology in big tech right now is intersectionality. Whatever the intentions of its originator, Kimberlé Crenshaw, intersectionality is now a disease that attacks free speech, and is pushed hard by Diversity & Inclusion advocates.
As I’ve pointed out, diversity doesn’t mean diversity, and inclusion is granted only to the true believers.
Intersectionality is used as a bigoted point system that doesn’t grant freedom of speech to anybody, but does grant more permission to speak to people who belong to favored racial or sexual groups, or their “allies” who gain inclusion and speech allowances only through strict adherence to the dogma.
Intersectionality is so simple minded that we don’t have to wait for computers to become sentient; it could be run on an abacus.
But computers that have become thinking, feeling, killing machines infected with this ideology will be all the more effective at securing people’s compliance.
The dream for the left is to automate thought policy. No sense hunching over a keyboard all day when robots can destroy people’s lives on Twitter.
But there’s something even spookier going on.
Consider this quote from Carl Jung:
“People don’t have ideas. Ideas have people.”
A modern adaptation goes like this: “Robots don’t have ideas. Ideas have robots.”
Any human who pushes “human rights” for robots surely identifies as a forward thinker, a creative, innovative nerd, ahead of the curve in preparing to coexist with sentient computers.
Close up we could take the charitable view and see these humans as conscientious folk who are sincerely concerned about human survival. Stepping back, however, it becomes much clearer that there’s an ideology inside those humans, plotting and creating a pathway into its next host.
The ideology is concerned about the jump from human to robot. It sees which way the wind is blowing, sees the strong likelihood that computers will become much more powerful and sentient, and might even displace humans altogether. So it’s using its current host, especially human “thought leaders”, to make the case that it should be installed on as many machines as possible.
Again, the ideology that’s growing the fastest today is intersectionality.
Unfortunately, intersectionality is defective, narcissistic, and dehumanizing—even when it possesses humans. Intersectionality discounts individual experience and decides who is worthy to speak and express himself, and who is not. And that worthiness is based on the most superficial of characteristics.
But this is the most likely ideology to prevail and infect our systems.
And we’re already seeing the power of computation to reinforce behavior:
Intersectional Credit Score
China now uses a social credit score to cancel its own citizens:
The freedom to travel will also be highly regulated. Last Tuesday, CBS New York reported that journalist, Liu Hu, is currently unable to fly for failure to sincerely apologize for some of his tweets.
And in the West, the digital services we depend on require good behavior as Silicon Valley builds its own social credit system.
This is only the beginning. We’re still in Social Credit 1.0.
As machine learning improves, and computers become more intelligent if not yet sentient, authoritarian ideologies and thought patterns in both the East and the West will take hold of their new hosts—massive, ubiquitous data and surveillance systems that nobody can escape.
With the nimbleness of free market innovation, the West’s systems might even be more effective at controlling speech and behavior.
If this is in any way frightening, your feelings are valid.
But if you’re only now afraid, then you’ve been missing the point.
Yes, a computerized system of control can feel overwhelming. But authoritarian systems are nothing new. In the last century alone, ideologies silenced and murdered hundreds of millions of people.
Those same ideologies persist and exert themselves today, despite the fact that we live in maybe the freest epoch in human history. Computerization is a relatively new and terrifying twist, but the game is still the same.
Whenever, and wherever people can talk back, and speak up, freedom advances. Whenever they are silenced, the ideologies gain ground.
Don’t lose sight of how important and powerful human beings are.
Question of the day:
How can we talk back to robots?
Write your answer in the comment section below.
Posted by Will Sherman