On human genome manipulation and Homo technicus: the legal treatment of non-natural human subjects

Abstract

Although legal personality has slowly begun to be granted to non-human entities that have a direct impact on the natural functioning of human societies (given their cultural significance), the same cannot be said for computer-based intelligence systems. While this notion has not had a significantly negative impact on humanity to this point in time that only remains the case because advanced computerised intelligence systems (ACIS) have not been acknowledged as reaching human-like levels. With the integration of ACIS in medical assistive technologies such as companion robots and bionics, our legal treatment of ACIS must also adapt-least society faces legal challenges that may potentially lead to legally sanctioned discriminatory treatment. For this reason, this article exposes the complexity of normalizing definitions of "natural" human subjects, clarifies how current bioethical discourse has been unable to effectively guide ACIS integration into implanted and external artefacts, and argues for the establishment of legal delineations between various ACIS-human mergers in reference to legal protections and obligations internationally.

The Question of Algorithmic Personhood and Being (Or: On the Tenuous Nature of Human Status and Humanity Tests in Virtual Spaces—Why All Souls Are ‘Necessarily’ Equal When Considered as Energy)

“…The primary challenge that is presented when discussing the "nature" of AIS is that there is not one specific artifact that can be defined as the AIS [1,14]. Similarly, there is a seemingly universal consensus that a given AIS must "attain" some sort of "sentience" or "will" for it to be considered "worthy" of human-like protections [15][16][17][18], though more frequently than not, little to no considerations are given as to how one might objectively realize that change within the system [1,19]. It is confounding, however, that we would insist that something wrought by our own hands be subjected to a flurry of questions regarding how "sentient" it is, especially when we consider how other technological artifacts that produce "intelligent" life are not beset by the same skepticism and scrutiny.…”

“…By this, it is meant that genetic manipulation techniques that are used in human-based gene sequence "correction" for specific defects that we have come to understand as being related to particular mutations in DNA code. While not in wide use [20][21][22], there is little denying that we do not put those who undergo somatic cell therapies under the same intense scrutiny that we place AIS under when questioning their "humanness" even though these techniques are not inherent in our "natural" selves [19,23]. To be clear, granting legal duties and protections to AIS is a means to an end, that being the protection of humans against damages wrought by another entity possessing intelligence on par with our species so that more structured discussions can be had as to the treatment of humans who enhance themselves with technology, and how the distinction between human and computer "will" can be established for the judicial proceedings that will inevitably arise as humans augment their intelligence with AIS [1,12,19,23,24].…”

“…Possibly, as shown in movies such as The Matrix [33,38,39], the most significant reason for refusing to delve heavily into this line of inquiry is because we fear what impacts such an answer might have on the human rationale for sustained existence. Or it might be the case that our innate ego is unwilling to accept that tools fashioned to support our societal functionalities will arise (or already have risen) to the point of being intellectual equals with their creators [1,19] (p. 343).…”

“…Such conversations are no longer rare. Yet, there is an increasingly visceral rejection of the notion that AIS might feasibly be able to attain some sense of consciousness or will [1,19,23,24]. Even supposing that the stories we have crafted for the purposes of massmedia entertainment are but figments of the human imagination, there have been many points in recent history where the existential question arises as to the humanity of a given AIdriven character within these contexts [31,32,[34][35][36][37][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][101][102][103][104][105][110][111][112].…”

“…While the above argument does not incorporate many other related arguments [1,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19]23,24,[114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122], there is a means for the argument to develop that nonaffective life can potentially exist that does not further examine the myriad of similar discourses that have occurred within the field. As will be argued in another essay (so as to enable its full defense by the authors of that work), science-fiction media serves a similar historical role to the present world much the same as our legends and lore of old in that it consolidates the fears of our forebearers (or futurist thinkers of today) in such a manner as to caution us about progressing technological advancement without careful consideration.…”