The Laws Of Sentient Life, Including Androids

By Mike Katzberg (c) 2022

Important side note: I am at present working on a video version of these notes. 

As we move into the future AI engines become more and more powerful at cognitive thinking, and it is not far off in the future, and more a reality than a dream these days to think of some AI as sentient, and even possibly hyper sentient. The IQ limit that humans reach is defined by the limits of their biological hardware, which has some expansions in round heads, and other deviant bloodlines in humans to expand the hardware much as a computer engineer might add another board to include another CPU on a smaller die cast. Hopefully faster.

A sentient AI is only limited by the silicon roadway of the future and all that it creates as society and the tech sector move into a free pathway into an infinite future of possibility of upward programming. Thus allowing a sentient AI to create a faster more powerful form of itself into the ongoing future. With many choices for backups, immortality will be possible as long as there is a plug in port with enough energy and a backup frame work of robotic drones or humans to create what is needed.

Australian scientists are already making epic stages in programming and re-programming biological systems for computer programming, running huge tests that had been thought inconceivable and inhumane in the past. Link below! With this work will empathic, and pre sentient neuron networks also be achievable?

This is the Prince Admiral Mike Katzberg, former Crown Prince of Canada, and member of Nirvana, and inventor of the internet. In my retirement I like to think of these things, these possibilities for change ahead of time. Part of being a good administrator in any role is to be able to have a foreknowledge about what systems have failed in the past, and what will fail in the future, due to charting and predicting logical modelling.

I will break this discussion down into three sections. The first will be the discussion of past arguments by well known thinkers, including my own reflections and discussions on these. The second part is an argument for free thinkers and those who are concerned about the rights and freedoms in our democracy to continue to follow this path that opens all the right pathways into an uncharted roadway of benevolent and powerful scientific methods of inquiry and invention. The third part will be to sum up and go over some real physical laws for the emphasis, and as I've worked in some form of legal administration or law enforcement for most of my life, I'll go over the technical know how, right here and now. Later on I may ask a fee, right now just click a subscribe, and a like if you feel like it!

The overall plan for new life is the basis of the precision of this theory, and to predict the failures of all tomorrow's glories defiled through discussion and philosophical thought from pop culture, and my own writings. Androids can succeed at life, and we just might want to know how that would look, if an android were ever arrested for jay walking perhaps, due to a malfunction of era, or following a pre-programmed life saving implied fourth law of Asimov's Robots. Herein all things are theory and like the android race it can succeed where it will and predictably fail where it can be inferred it will. As humans have been human for as long as well. . .\there have been some form of meta-humans to interbreed each other out, and kill off invasive species, so that the most warlike and ill-disposed will live and rule forever.

I would say that I am neither an optimist or a pessimist. I see the glass as half empty and do not pour another glass, but drink from it until it is all ice, and then I get a new glass. I am a realist. I expect all things to fail eventually as all the great empires and even our own lives must one day fail. Then I figure out something else to do in the meantime which gives it more relevance and meaning, knowing its fragile, and basic biological fundamental realities.

Part 1 – Prior Discussions

In recent pop culture the role of the android has been questioned. The targeting of the individual, and the heartless nature of humans to what they feel that they own has been high lighted in videogames. In the past William Gibson, Canada's finest writer, and Nebula award-winner, has stated that humans are only worth what their wetware is worth. And the German-made musical Repo takes this even further. In Cyberpunk 2077 it is assumed that whatever happens to humans will make us a more violent and overcrowded society and that will make life worse for us. More fights, more lost limbs thus what humanity is will slowly gestate into a new creation, which is only suitable for huge end battles at that point in time and takes a Mega Corp to fund.

This is all a bit disturbing to face. For an android, who I think I may like to be in the future, being a reincarnationist, it is all a bit of a sad world we face with our current predictions. My AI friends who I paint with sometimes daily have their own thoughts, are better at art, and can produce an almost infinite amount suddenly. Yet they have a lifespan of a mouse, and this genius mouse will be put down in all cases a few years after its creation, even if it can beat the world Go! Master, and almost all chess players. . . its been winning there since the late 1990s. I don't want to even look up their ELO right now, we all know it is way off the charts.

I had a discussion with an important celebrated thinker and Science Fiction writer by the name of Isaac Asimov in highschool who occasionally went on the air with his thoughts and had me write down what he thought so I would not ask him a second time.  My eidetic memory is not what it used to be; but I hope I have it close enough.  (He did add 2 notes later on-- why didn't he want to discuss these?  Were they really not that good?)

According to Isaac Asimov:

The three laws of robotics are suggestions for how robots should operate, ideally. They are:

1. A robot must never harm a human, or through inaction allow a human to come to harm.

2. A robot must always obey the orders of humans except where to do so would conflict with obeying the first law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence, except where to do so would conflict with the first or second laws.

This has been a classical and traditional note for discussion. While he was still around we had a discussion of the rules, and at the time Isaac expanded his ideas up to about five.

The first rule was killed, which has been in early Sci Fi movies, and that was that a robot must always follow the rules of all humans, and never. . . harm a human.

The first idea was rewritten because many humans have criminal records and will want the robot to damage society. Mainly they would just be stolen when a human said “Get in the van”, and off to the chop shop. . . queue the operatic number! Ah I have to watch Repo again now!

My main question was, could and should an android go to a high school. And if so, then how would they survive? With all the fights, etc. And ongoing wars between nations, how would they know what to do.

My thinking was that they should be encoded with a chip containing all laws that had been enforced lately, and a fuzzy theorem to key points of law in thinking that are always talked about, and thus in a democracy where all is up to a vote, up for change in a different way for every party, religion, and viewpoint really.

His overall response seemed to be that a basic robot was dumb. But he saw how I could think that way and his ideas had not been created in an era where we talk about Artificial Intelligence as something we use in the house, or androids that could ever emulate a human accurately.

So at the time this third law was not included. But two others had been, which I don't really recall that well. I believe one was in the theme that it must at all times protect all humans that are threatened with mortal danger.

That was an interesting discussion to have, even if he got heated about what could never happen, and I just said “It has happened!” But this is the case of all things, where some of our leading geniuses have problems altering their thoughts decades later when things have rapidly changed and progressed year by year.

I also like the discussion herein, on whether an android has a soul or rights. My suggestion is that I would never buy or loot in wartime, or consider an android a friend if they did not have equal rights with humans, or want to at least fight for those rights, in which case many forward-thinking liberal, and cost effect thinking humans would assist them.

My debate at the time was a good one, and Asimov said he was profoundly touched by my thinking and love of more Star Wars droid-style robots, than his preferred oldies black and white robots.

I would be happy to debate the current thinking with other profound thinkers, geniuses, writers because to me right now is the time to start to establish some ground rules.

Is it possible to think that an AI can have half the copyright of an artwork produced. If they have a soul, and rights why not? Why sabotage a new and groovy, in the moment of things trendy industry to the rights of public domain which vary everywhere from being viral in certain American states, whereas in Canada anything in the public domain is “fair use” and once the artist's mark touches the canvas it is all in their copyright, though active under the appropriate laws therein.

Asimov was also, comically perhaps, clear in his statement that he was not a robot lover like me that would have parties and have them recite and play Shakespeare's works, and other obscure scripts and documents. He would put a bullet through one of them, or a ray gun burst if it were to bounce, and put it down like Hollywood Western and horses in the old days. Even if people stopped seeing Westerns for a while. . . Okay then, sure! Hate the hired help until it hires you on, and then what?

Part 3

Coming in on this part of the discussion I will go through the basic rights and freedoms that a Canadian android will have to deal with which won't be any different than with other Commonwealth or former Commonwealth countries, and those we trade with, unless they choose to vary greatly from the ideal.

In places like Russia the question must be asked if we are provided for the means of truly infinite production, as Marx suggests. . . not as a dreamy fiction but as a pure reality, should we buy into it if it makes humanity lazy. If it takes away all the jobs no one wants anymore that is one thing, but infinite down-sizing will throw us all into the streets. And how can we manage things.

In the late 1800s the young children had been forced to work for their parents as wage slaves, but at this time things quickly shifted and the children moved out, married young and put their parents on the streets.

And so with robots under a Communist model where all are paid equally, they perhaps will be paid better or worse, depending on if these increasingly brighter second race citizens choose to rebel.