Giving AI Robots “Personhood” -Could This Be Instrumental in an AI Antichrist?

Much has been written of late concerning AI and how this technology is rapidly changing the world in which we live.

Many writers who have been following the advancement of this technology are even questioning the wisdom in empowering these robots.  In the secular community, scientists such as Stephen Hawking have been warning the world of the horrific possibilities of the destruction of the human race by AI bots.

From independent.co.uk

Earlier this year, Hawking  called for technology to be controlled in order to prevent it from destroying the human race, and said humans need to find a way to identify potential threats quickly, before they have a chance to escalate and endanger civilisation.

Back in 2015, he also expressed fears that AI could grow so powerful it might end up killing humans unintentionally – source

While researching for my other AI Robot articles, I ran across a gentleman who is a Rabbi, a Lawyer and Professor.  His quotes in the article prompted me to seek this man out and write to him. He spoke of AI robots one day becoming part of human society. He clearly distinguished AI from humans, but eluded to the need to assimilate these machines into our society; and with that he spoke of the “rights” of these nightmarish “beings.”

The Rabbi

I did write to the rabbi whose name is Dr. Mark Goldfeder.  I asked him if he had finished his dissertation on the subject of the rights of Robots. He responded by sending me a pdf of the writing.  He also gave me permission to quote from it with attribution.

From Dr. Mark Goldfeder and Joseph Razin

Robotic Marriage and the Law  (My commentary will be indented and in blue)

“INTRODUCTION

The United States, and the world at large, is in the midst of a family law revolution that will fundamentally change our very conception of family. Ethical challenges to age-old ideas have prompted people to ask foundational questions, such as how and why our most important personal relationships evolved. In a world where same-sex marriage has been legalized, it is only natural to wonder who marriage may include in the future.

“Ethical Challenges?”  There is nothing ethical about the family laws which are springing up.

At the same time, we are also living in an age of unprecedented technological innovation. The rise of smart machines and the incredible advances in robotics over the last few decades highlight that the difference between science fiction and science is closing with the passage of time. Social robots spend time with the elderly and the young. Robots can even experience a form of childhood.

Over 60 million unborn babies were slaughtered since 1973.  They were clearly DENIED a childhood experience.

Robots now work in our factories  and mines, and, career- wise, they can be anything from blue-collar prison guards to white-collar financial traders. Humans are already forming deep and meaningful relationships with their artificial friends, and indeed many humans are becoming intrigued by the possibility, and increasing reality, of human-robot romance. Movies and TV shows such as Her, are just a small sample of the dynamics of this relationship spectrum, ranging from platonic love to prostitution.

Are you kidding me?  Instead of human-robot romance, let’s just call a spade a spade. It will be at best human-robot lust, and quite disgusting in my opinion.

The question that this essay deals with will extend these possibilities one step further with a simple thought experiment: Could it ever be possible for a human and a robot to legally wed in the United States? The second Section addresses whether robots could be legal persons subject to marriage laws in the United States. The third Section considers what it would mean for robots to be in loving relationships. Sections Four, Five and Six analyze three threshold requirements for marriages-consent, understanding and decision- making capacity-that robots would have to meet to qualify for a legal marriage. Our conclusions are laid out in Section Seven.

Because the people who are pushing for marriage between people and robots do not believe in God – there is no mention of the fact that robots have no “soul.”

ROBOT PERSONHOOD
Legal personality is quite different than the colloquial meaning of “person”; it makes no claim about morality, and this term does not in any way require sentience or vitality.  “In books of the Law, as in other books, and in common speech, ‘person’ is often used as meaning a human being, but the technical legal meaning of a ‘person’ is a subject of legal rights and duties.”  To be a legal person is to have the capability of possessing legal rights and duties within a certain legal system, such as the right to enter into contracts, own property, sue and be sued.

Brethren, is it becoming more clear why Sophia was granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia?

The question whether an entity should be considered a legal person is reducible to other questions about whether or not the entity can and should be made the subject of a set of legal rights and duties. The particular bundle of rights and duties
that accompanies legal personhood varies with the nature of the entity.

Do you see how conveniently the writers of this dissertation do not mention the legal rights of the unborn?

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, an artificial person is:
An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. An entity is a person for purposes of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses but is not a citizen for purposes of the Privileges and Immunities Clauses in Article IV
Research Working Paper No.16049, 2010), http://www.nber.org/papers/w16049.

Not all legal persons have the same rights and obligations, and some entities are only considered “persons” for some matters, but not others. Corporations, for instance, have the right to free political speech, but not the right to vote.  If
the law creates legal persons, then legal “definitions of persons are prescriptive rather than descriptive, it follows that arriving at a satisfactory concept of personhood is a matter of decision not discovery.”

They speak “legalize” to confuse, and it’s quite effective.

The establishment of personhood is an assessment made by a legislature or a judicial body to grant an entity rights and obligations, regardless of how the entity looks and whether or not it could pass for human. The truth is that the:
Person, notion of personhood has expanded significantly, albeit slowly, over the last few thousand years. Throughout history, women, children, and slaves have all at times been considered property rather than persons. The category of persons recognized in the courts has expanded to include entities and characters including natural persons aside from men.., as well as unnatural or juridical persons, such as corporations, labor unions, nursing homes, municipalities and government
units.

We are waiting for the day when the unborn child will be declared a “person.”

So, can a robot be a person? Again, “personhood” as a legal concept arises not from the humanity of the subject but from the ascription of rights and duties to the subject. The determination of whether an entity or being counts as a legal person is largely context- specific, and not necessarily consistently made. ‘In the United States’ common law tradition there is no discrete body of law containing all of the applicable provisions of legal personhood.

More legalize……

Legal persons constitute a diverse community that includes various individuals, entities and collectives in different ways for different jurisdictions. To add to
this diversity, the common law of legal personhood is disparate and diffuse, found in cases, statutes and treatises.’

And more of the same…….

If an autonomous artificial being were capable “of accepting social responsibility, legal responsibility, or duties necessary for rights of legal personhood,”  then there is no reason why a robot could not be a legal person. Indeed, many scholars,
noting that robots already serve as agents, make contracts, and commit torts and crimes, have started calling for the ascription of robotic personhood to
those intelligent autonomous systems that seem to deserve it.

It is so very easy for atheist (and yes, I am including the Rabbi) to say that a robot could possibly be a legal person even though they have no soul. That fact is of no consequence to these people.

Once the potential personhood of a robot is admitted, it is worth exploring the extent of such rights and duties that judges and lawmakers may decide to grant to these robots in the future. We may grant robots rights for their own safety as well
as establish a duty to protect another person’s safety. We may also consider assigning them responsibility in regard to issues of custody and liability, rights to privacy, or even intellectual property. Once we have established that at least some robots can or should be some kind of “person” with some selection of rights, the question becomes whether they should be the kind of person that has the right to marry other persons.

Well, it seems that the authors of this article have already deemed robots to be “persons.”  Now they have delved right into whether these machines should have the right to marry other persons.

Before making such conclusions about robots, we must consider a more developed set of case law concerning the most common articulation.

“Note that this question is quite different than debates about, say, abortion or end of life issues. Those debates focus on the outer limits of natural personhood, and when (and until what time) a natural person is human. This question fundamentally assumes that robots are not human, but can still be unnatural persons.

Unbelievable.  They go right from speaking about the unborn and the elderly – questioning when both of these persons are no longer deemed “persons” to speaking about a new name for robots – “Unnatural persons”  This is demonic.

 Thus, courts consider corporations to be persons under the Constitution, subject to laws and entitled to protections of their many and varied rights. If corporations can associate, and, indeed, can even be religious, it is not farfetched to push a little further and ask if all persons-including all corporations as juridical people-hold the specific right to marry.

Hodges found that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As the Court noted: The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their
sexual orientation.

Same sex marriage was indeed opening Pandoras box. The uber Leftists will use the union of two same sex people to open wide the door for all manner of idiotic and absurd arguments!

If this is true for all persons, then should natural persons differ from juridical persons? Or should we adopt the approach of Professor Hilary Putnam, who once wrote, regarding the concept of robotic personhood, that “discrimination” based on the “softness” or “hardness” of the body parts of a synthetic “organism” seems as silly as discriminatory treatment of humans on the basis of skin color. As Angelo Guisado notes: precluding a subgroup of persons, whether they are homosexual, Latino, or artificial, is a classification that, should the State wish to exclude them from marriage rights, must be justified in the face of the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, [a corporation] could possibly find repose in an equal protection claim, even in light of the extensive case law indicating that marriage is a fundamental right and a liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The absurd has now traveled into science fiction. And to use the “color of the skin of people”  and compare it to whether a “person” has soft living skin, or a hard shell (robot) well, we are now into INSANITY!

It would seem then, that there is no obvious reasons why a juridical person could not theoretically marry a natural person, or another juridical person for that matter. In fact, on July 26, 2012, in King County (Seattle), Washington, Angela Marie Vogel became the first woman in America to legally marry a corporation. The marriage was short-lived, as the County quickly reversed its decision and voided the license. But the statement by Cameron Satterfield, a spokesperson for the County, was revealing:

When either party to a marriage is incapable of consent then it’s void, no longer valid, or not valid period. So that’s the basis in which we went ahead and voided the application. We went ahead and did that ourselves within our office because by the time it would’ve gone to the state, they would’ve voided it anyways. So we just avoided that altogether and voided it here.

The problem then seems to be in the finite and quite addressable area of “consent”. Perhaps, corporations cannot consent, and maybe the division of power between shareholders, board members, a CEO, COO, President, and others makes unambiguous consent too much of an issue. The question of whether an artificial person could actually express simple consent is answered in Section Four, but, first, the question of whether robots can love must be addressed.

There is much I have left off and have gone right into the rabbi’s “conclusion.”  The absurdity continued to grow in this article, and quite honestly, I was weary of even dignifying it with my commentary.  

CONCLUSION
The question then really becomes the following: Why should a robotic person not be able to marry? In general, the law seems to favor an intentional approach to attributing intent to better predict outcomes. Additionally, case law has been slowly moving towards using that approach to equate the actions of autonomous machines with the actions of human beings when required to consider mental states for legal purposes. Conversely, if the claim of Professor Gary Marchant is considered: “Robot-human marriage is not about robot rights; it is about the right of a human to choose to marry a robot.” If that is the case, then, again, seeing as how Western society is inching toward the harm- principle as the ultimate ideal in deciding cases-if no one else is being harmed then consenting people should be allowed to enter into any marital agreement.”

Brethren, we are now witnessing the inevitable, and that is that this sin sick society will indeed grant personhood to these AI robots.  They will also allow them to marry humans. Does this not open wide the door for Antichrist to be an AI Robot?  Of course, by then our society will not be calling these freakish machines “robots” any longer.

They will have been given personhood status.  I believe that in the coming years, it will be nearly impossible to distinguish a living “Created by God” person from an AI Bot.

God help us all.

MARANATHA!

 

Brethren: The Attacks on Billy Graham Must Stop! Lay down Your Stones or Cast Them – You Who Have No Sin

I have absolutely had it.

This article is not going to be filled with rebuttals to the vicious attacks on the life of Billy Graham, but instead I want the reader see the lives of other great men of God.  I keep having a picture in my head of Christians holding and throwing stones at the very memory of Billy Graham, who spent his life sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The purpose of this article is to take a look at many other theologians throughout history, and even in the Bible. I hope to show the reader that we (all who belong to the Lord Jesus Christ) are human, with the frailties and faults which come from being in these sinful bodies of flesh.

King David

If there was ever a man who broke every one of God’s Commandments, it certainly was David. And yet God called David “A man after My own heart.”  From his great sin of adultery with Bathsheba, and then arranging for her husband to be murdered on the front lines of battle, David’s great sins were laid bare before him, and also before anyone who reads the Word of God. And yet the life of King David inspires us to love God and His Word.  This may sound hypocritical, but it is truly not so.

From gotquestions.org   (excerpts)

After he sinned, David was truly repentant. David’s sin with Bathsheba is recorded in 2 Samuel 11:2–5. The mighty fall hard, and David’s fall included adultery, lying, and murder. He had sinned against God, and he admits it in 2 Samuel 12:13: “David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the LORD.’ And Nathan said to David, ‘The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die.’” But admitting our sin and asking for forgiveness is only half of the equation. The other half is repentance, and David did that as well. Psalm 51 is David’s prayer of repentance to God: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin!” (Psalm 51:1–2).

In conclusion, David was a man after God’s own heart because he demonstrated his faith and was committed to following the Lord. Yes, his faith was tested on a grand scale, and he failed at times. But after his sin he sought and received the Lord’s forgiveness. In the final analysis, David loved God’s Law and sought to follow it exactly. As a man after God’s own heart, David is a role model for all of us. – source

The Apostle Paul

I believe that the Lord allowed the struggles and sins of His anointed to help us in our walk with God.  As we read about the Apostle Paul, we know that he struggled with what he called “The thorn in his flesh.”  Do we know exactly what this thorn was in the flesh of God’s servant, Paul?  We can only speculate about this.

Read what Paul said about his struggles:

“Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.  For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.  If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.

 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.  For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.  Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me”  (Romans 7:13-20).  (emphasis added)

The Apostle Peter

How we love Peter as we get to know him through reading the Gospels! How plain it is before us that this man who adored our Lord Jesus, was prone to saying the most outrageous things.  Yes, they are all recorded in the Word of God for us to see.

And after proclaiming to his Lord that he would never abandon him, Jesus tells Peter that before the cock crows thrice, he will deny Him three times. I cannot imagine the pain in Peter’s heart when he realized that he had done just as the Lord had said:

“And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest. But Peter stood at the door outside. Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to her who kept the door, and brought Peter in.  Then the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this Man’s disciples, are you?”

He said, “I am not.”  (John 18:15-17).

 “Now Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. Therefore they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?”

He denied it and said, “I am not!”

 One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of him whose ear Peter cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?”  Peter then denied again; and immediately a rooster crowed”  (John 18: 25-27).

There are so many more examples in the Word of God which show clearly the frailty of men and women – and how, despite their sin, God used them in such mighty ways for His glory.

Let us look at servants of our Lord in more recent times:

Martin Luther

Well known as one of the fathers of the Great Reformation, there are certainly very dark periods of this man’s life.  Many believers know about the great sins of Luther – many don’t.  I wrote an article expanding on Luther’s anti-Semitism.  You may read it here:

Can you Love the Lord Jesus Christ, Yet Despise His People?

In his latter years, Luther wrote a sermon entitled “On the Jews and Their Lies.”  This disparaging and outright evil sermon caused the burning down of countless synagogues, and the murder of over 2000 Jews in one night.

Hitler loved Martin Luther, and carried this sermon with him to all SS meetings.

I’m sorry if I have shocked those who did not know about this side of Luther.  I admit to you as a Jew that when I read about this sermon, I was appalled and for a time did not even want to see a quote by Luther.

One day a sister in Christ spoke words to me which changed my heart. She told me that Luther was but a “man” and therefore not perfect.  She reminded me of the boldness of Luther’s writing the 95 theses and nailing them to the door of the Catholic church.  He was striving to show the leadership of Catholicism that the Word clearly spoke of being saved by Grace through Faith, and NOT by works. I am so thankful that the Lord sent this sister to me to help me see Luther as a “man” and not beyond the ability to sin greatly.

John Calvin

Another father of the Great Reformation, John Calvin was quoted as saying this:

“Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.” ~John Calvin.

I could write on so many “great” man of the faith and shock you with quotes and actions towards my people, but I think that the ones presented in this article suffice to drive home my point.

Billy Graham

My father was brought up in an Orthodox Jewish family in Boston.  Somewhere along the path of his life, someone shared the Greatest story ever told with my dad. I don’t know this for a fact, but there is no other explanation for the words which my father spoke to us as we were growing up – words about Yeshua.  In retrospect, my dad had been searching for the truth about Jesus for many years.

As my father got older, he began to watch Billy Graham Crusades, much to the chagrin of my “Secular Jewish” mother.  She would say that my dad must be losing his mind!   My father would never miss seeing Reverend Graham when he was on television.

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Billy Graham sowed so many seeds into my father’s heart through the years.  The Lord allowed me the blissful privilege of leading my father in prayer to our Savior on the night of his death.

I will see him in heaven – Hallelujah!

Brothers and Sisters in Christ – there is one ONE perfect one and that is our Redeemer – our Savior – the Lord Jesus Christ.  Tempted in every way which we are, He had no sin.   He is God.

PLEASE lay down your stones. Please see Reverend Graham’s life as any other servant of our God.  Please understand that when you disparage the life of Billy Graham – you are hurting the body of Christ and even the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You are taking the eyes of the world off of the Lord and even more, you are dragging the Lord Himself through the mud.

I pray that this article has opened at least some eyes of those who are bound and determined to disgrace the name of a great servant – an anointed man of God, whose life’s work was to bring people to the Cross and have them lay down their lives and accept the finished work of Christ so as to be saved.

Shalom b’Yeshua

MARANATHA