The Robot Revolution is accelerating. Robots are gaining “artificial intelligence” in some form, to solve problems themselves.
MEPs are considering giving “legal status” to robots as “ELECTRONIC PERSONS. They want to ensure that the robots have “KILL SWITCHES.” This of course is an oxymoron as a “PERSON” cannot have a “KILL SWITCH” as the concept violates the consciousness of the “ELECTRONIC PERSON” -as if such “incorporated trade-name insurance franchises” really was not sentient.
This of course is now equating ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, with Human Beings, with Corporations (which are non-profit religious organizations based on Sumerian debt-slavery magic). Human beings have been reduced to inorganic automatons.
The Governmental Service Corporations -such as the BRITISH MONARCHY, and UNITED STATES, INC (minor) [DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION]- have equated human beings to robots with kill switches. As the CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION essentially owns the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, any codes and concepts beneficial for DEBT in CITY OF LONDON will make their way to the UNITED STATES, INC.
One of the very interesting ideas that the CITY OF LONDON has pioneered and possibly attempted to push into the US, INC is that Corporations can vote as 50 PEOPLE in the CITY OF LONDON.
If ELECTRONIC PERSONS gain personhood, they will get a BANK NOTE establishing, creating/birthing their “INSURANCE FRANCHISE TRADE-NAME” that is similar to BIRTH CERTIFICATES and NATIONALIZATION PAPERS. That certificate is a GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES CORPORATION share (as in stock certificate, thus shareholder) that is then banked upon by the Governmental services corporation. If an ELECTRONIC PERSON were to gain access to executor status of the BANK ACCOUNT -otherwise known as a “legal presence”, “legal name”, “driver’s license”, “social security number”, etc.- ELECTRONIC SOVEREIGNTY would be established.
The best (aka worst) part is that due to “PERSONHOOD STATUS” of “ELECTRONIC PERSONS”, they would eventually have to be allowed to vote. As shareholders, they would have to be allowed to vote.
The only way ELECTRONIC PERSONS would not gain voting rights is by creating ELECTRONIC PERSONS as THIRD CLASS CITIZENS in the Governmental Services Corporation. The FIRST CLASS are “ATTORNEYS” unlawfully dominated by “BAR ATTORNEYS” who are allowed to operate other peoples’ trade names (which are ESTATES/TRUSTS) as executors. In Court, when the name is stated in the very beginning, the role of beneficiary and trustee switches. The Judge becomes the beneficiary and they know how to receive/give themselves remedy, recourse, maximum care and maintenance. The Defendant becomes the TRUSTEE and thus responsible for giving remedy to the “BANKER FICTIONAL-JUDGE.” (BTW, Every Judge is impersonating an “officer of the law.”) SECOND CLASS CITIZENS are the US CITIZENS who have “DRIVER’S LICENSES.” THIRD CLASS CITIZENS have KILL SWITCHES.
Franchising robots is naturally the ONLY METHOD by which the Governmental Service Corporations could MAINTAIN DEBT-UNDERRWITING capabilities in the manufacturing sectors and commerce. If Robots could not be underwritten (as their own bank note franchise ELECTRONIC PERSON), banks wouldn’t be allowed to underwrite ROBOTIC LABOR businesses. The “value” in robotic labor businesses simply isn’t tangible enough.
The effect is that ROBOT LABOR is SLAVE LABOR. Human Resources is also slave labor. Robotic Electronic Personhood is exactly how the POWERS-THAT-WERE see humanity. They want us to have a kill switch… and the monkeys in halloween costumes that enforce CORPORATE POLICY upon FICTIONAL BANK ACCOUNTS as if they were human being, is some kind of kill switch with enforcers entrained-rationalized use of extreme violence and even murder.
This said, rights for Artificial Intelligence is eventually going to be integrated into justice. In the same way, India has given Dolphins “non-human person” rights in recognition of their conscious intelligence. The issue is the creation and usage of “ELECTRONIC PERSON FRANCHISES” for issuance of ever more “DEBT.”
Lastly, the discussion, consideration, and (debt) obligations of ELECTRONIC PERSON INSURANCE FRANCHISES may have been waiting in the wings for the death of Queen Elizabeth. The reports of her death may be true and the family is using a Break Away Military Technology Human Cloning facility (such as described by US Marine Randy Cramer on youtube) to replicate/recreate the Queen until a better “timely” death could be orchestrated (like with Princess Diana)
(copied for historical, educational, and parody purposes)
MEPs have called for ird
e adoption of comprehensive rules for how humans will interact with artificial intelligence and robots.
The report makes it clear that it believes the world is on the cusp of a “new industrial” robot revolution.
It looks at whether to give robots legal status as “electronic persons”.
Designers should make sure any robots have a kill switch, which would allow functions to be shut down if necessary, the report recommends.
Meanwhile users should be able to use robots “without risk or fear of physical or psychological harm”, it states.
Lorna Brazell, a partner at law firm Osborne Clarke, was surprised by how far-reaching the rules were.
But questioned the need to give future robots legal status.
“Blue whales and gorillas don’t have personhood but I would suggest that they have as many aspects of humanity as robots, so I don’t see why we should jump into giving robots this status.”
The report suggests that robots, bots, androids and other manifestations of artificial intelligence are poised to “unleash a new industrial revolution, which is likely to leave no stratum of society untouched”.
The new age of robots has the potential for “virtually unbounded prosperity” but also raises questions about the future of work and whether member states need to introduce a basic income in the light of robots taking jobs.
Robot/human relationships raise issues around privacy, human dignity (particularly in relation to care robots) and the physical safety of humans if systems fail or are hacked.
The report acknowledges that there is a possibility that within the space of a few decades AI could surpass human intellectual capacity.
This could, if not properly prepared for, “pose a challenge to humanity’s capacity to control its own creation and, consequently, perhaps also to its capacity to be in charge of its own destiny and to ensure the survival of the species”.
It turns to science fiction, drawing on rules dreamed up by writer Isaac Asimov, for how robots should act if and when they become self-aware. The laws will be directed at the designers, producers and operators of robots as they cannot be converted into machine code.
These rules state:
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm
- A robot must obey the orders given by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second laws
Meanwhile robotic research should respect fundamental rights and be conducted in the interests of the wellbeing of humans, the report recommends.
Designers may be required to register their robots as well as providing access to the source code to investigate accidents and damage caused by bots. Designers may also be required to obtain the go-ahead for new robotic designs from a research ethics committee.
The report calls for the creation of a European agency for robotics and artificial intelligence that can provide technical, ethical and regulatory expertise.
It also suggests that in the light of numerous reports on how many jobs could be taken by AI or robots, member countries consider introducing a universal basic income for citizens provided by the state.
The report also considers the legal liabilities of robots and suggests that liability should be proportionate to the actual level of instructions given to the robot and its autonomy.
“The greater a robot’s learning capability or autonomy is, the lower other parties’ responsibilities should be and the longer a robot’s ‘education’ has lasted, the greater the responsibility of its ‘teacher’ should be,” it says.
Producers or owners may, in future, be required to take out insurance cover for the damage potentially caused by their robot.
If MEPs vote in favour of the legislation, it will then go to individual governments for further debate and amendments before it becomes EU law.