|
Current Issue Contents | Past Issues | Subscribe | Contact | Terasem Journals Home |
||
|
Volume 2, Issue 3
|
BINA48 Mock Trial: Judge's DecisionProfessor Gene NatalePage 3 of 5 Prior Proceedings involving BINA48: “ . . . I . . .deny 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 that authority in the absence of the legislature.” (Hon. Joseph P. McMenamin). The California Supreme Court denied the “computer’s” appeal. In BINA48 v. Exabit Corp., (M.D. Fla, 2005.) in a second mock action commenced by the same, so-called “intelligent computer”, the two judge en banc [1] federal district court was split on the issue of recognizing BINA48’s right to bring a lawsuit. Justice Silverman stated: “ … unless an until there is a change in the consciousness of flesh and blood voting people, sufficient to cause our laws to embrace the concept of machines with human consciousness, the proponents cannot expect reasonably, vindication in the courtroom.” Justice Anthony Dutton disagreed with his judicial colleague on that esteemed bench. Findings: Each counsel understandably narrows their argument to the jurisdictional issues of standing, since those are the specific subjects of the motion. However, this court is not Although the claim of Mr. Fairfax is couched in contract, a liberal reading of the papers filed demonstrate possible claims for quasi-contract, theft, conversion, fraud, deceit, or even breach of fiduciary duties. Although the defense of BINA48 is couched in jurisdictional terms, a careful review of the entire history and facts reveal an entity “striking back” at our system of justice from what may have been perceived by her to have been a substantial “injustice” previously thrust upon her by that system.
We really should not be surprised with having to confront a dispute such as the one at hand. What may be surprising is that we are facing it this early in our technological evolution. Can machines think? It was not too long ago, that in order to replace that then emotionally charged question, Professor Al Turing [2], in his 1950 paper, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence”, proposed a “test” to determine a machine’s capability to perform human-like conversation. In what became known as the “Turing Test”, a human judge engages in natural conversation with two other parties, one human and the other a machine; if the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the machine is said to pass the test. Professor Turing also predicted that in the not too distant future, machines would be capable of “learning” as well. In 1985, “student lawyer” Robert A. Freitas Jr. presented us with a very amusing paper entitled “The Legal Rights of Robots”.[3] He predicts that by 2020 most homes will offer a “low-cost domestic robot option “. Freitas points to other futurists, such as science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov’s classic Three Laws of Robotics [4]. Freitas also introduces us to Richard Laing, a former computer scientist at the University of Michigan, who “contemplated” a day when human-level intelligent machines exhibit complex behaviors. In the matter of Wells v. U.S. (16 Av.Cas.17914 [W.D. Wash. 1981], the court inferred pilot error when switching from automatic pilot to manual control in a crisis situation, thereby recognizing “robot judgment” as superior to human judgment. Footnotes 1. En banc – (French – “in bench”) – “Bench”; place where the judges hear cases. A court “sitting in banc” (or en banc”) is a session of all judges together. 3. The Legal Rights of Robots – Can the wheels of justice turn for our friends in the mechanical kingdom? Don't laugh.http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/LegalRightsOfRobots.htm August 3, 2007 11:11 EST 4. Three Laws of Robotics - a set of three rules written by Isaac Asimov, which almost all positronic robotics appearing in his fiction must obey.
|
The Terasem Pledge We pledge allegiance to the flag of the collective consciousness of Terasem, and to the principles for which it stands, education, persistently, with diversity, unity, and joyful immortality everywhere.
|
|
TerasemJournal.com Home | Journal of Geoethical Nanotechnology | Journal of Personal Cyberconsciousness Copyright © 2006-07, Terasem Movement, Inc. Disclaimer |
||
so confined, and has the inherent power (and the obligation) to go beyond the claims and contentions of the parties, in order to afford the parties complete and substantial justice.
To simply dismiss the case will certainly deny Mr. Fairfax possibly the only remedy he may have. To simply sustain the case may be contrary to the ultimate interests of BINA48. 