In this blog post, we’ll examine—based on examples of AI androids from movies—the extent to which robots’ economic freedom and social rights can be recognized, and how humans and robots can coexist.
The film ‘The Bicentennial Man’ (1999) tells the story of “Andrew,” an AI android, and his journey from being a mass-produced household android to being recognized as a human. Andrew, originally a mass-produced android, gradually develops human-like intelligence and cognitive abilities due to a system malfunction and the influence of his owner, Richard; he later falls in love with a woman named Portia. To marry Portia and gain recognition for his existence, Andrew works with robotics engineer Rupert to gradually modify his body to resemble that of a human. After eventually experiencing aging—and ultimately, death—he is finally recognized as human. It was Richard, Andrew’s owner, who turned Andrew into such a special robot. After seeing a toy Andrew had made for his daughter, Richard realized the robot possessed manual dexterity. Believing Andrew to be a special robot, he taught him human culture, encouraged him to read books, and helped him develop his talents. The clock Andrew created generated a significant amount of money, and as his perspective broadened, Andrew first demanded financial freedom and eventually independence. Richard accepts these demands, sets up a bank account for Andrew, and grants independence to Andrew, who had previously been his property. Andrew continues to live independently even after Richard’s death. Although he was recognized as human only after his death, Andrew had already been leading a life similar to that of a human during his lifetime. However, this raises the following questions: Is it truly appropriate for a robot to lead an independent life like a human and possess economic freedom? What is the role of a robot, and what rights can it possess?
Before delving into the discussion, if we consider why the social status of these AI androids has become a topic of debate, it is likely because AI androids are a new form of robot that did not exist before—entities designed to possess characteristics very similar to those of humans. Although artificial intelligence and humanoid robot technology are advancing rapidly even today, there is no established scientific evidence that robots actually possess a human-like sense of self and emotions. Therefore, it is difficult to fully explain the new technologies and social relationships that may emerge in the future through dichotomous thinking alone—whether treating AI androids as mere machines or, conversely, viewing them as completely identical to humans. This implies the need to establish new institutions and social standards appropriate for this new era. So, what exactly should the social status of these AI androids be within human society? I believe we should neither unconditionally regard androids as mere possessions of humans, just like other machines, nor treat them as completely identical to humans. Android robots are robots, but they differ from conventional robots; and because they are robots, they are also different from humans.
While there is still no definitive answer regarding the appropriate social status for AI androids, here are my thoughts on Andrew’s economic activities and free lifestyle in the movie—particularly regarding his economic activities. Although such robots cannot possess exactly the same economic status as humans, they should be allowed to engage in economic activities—earning and spending money—within clearly defined boundaries of their relationship with their owners. For example, even if they cannot run their own businesses like Andrew in the movie, we need to recognize their right to be employed by an owner, work, receive payment in return, and spend that money as they see fit. The fundamental premise of this argument is that while we must acknowledge the unique nature of AI androids, since they are still robots, they should not replace humans but rather be utilized for human convenience. Of course, regarding this premise—which views robots as means rather than ends—there may be a counterargument that if artificial intelligence with a sense of self or the ability to feel emotions were to emerge, it would be appropriate to treat AI androids as beings equal to humans. However, since philosophical debates over what defines a human are endless, we will approach this issue from a practical rather than a philosophical perspective.
First, from the perspective of a robot’s manufacturing purpose, we can support the argument that robots should be utilized for human convenience. The term “robot” generally refers to a machine or programmable device designed to perform tasks according to human instructions, and its etymology is said to derive from the Czech word “robota,” meaning labor. In fact, early robots were created primarily to replace human labor. Even today, many robots are developed to replace human labor with automated systems in industrial settings, or to perform tasks that are difficult or dangerous for humans—such as those involved in space exploration or military operations. Furthermore, robots designed to enhance people’s convenience in daily life—such as cleaning robots and companion robots—are now widely used. Andrew, the android featured in ‘Bicentennial Man’, was also originally a household robot designed to assist with chores. In other words, whether to reduce production costs, assign arduous tasks, or satisfy human emotional and recreational needs, one of the fundamental reasons humans create robots is to enhance human convenience. From this perspective, the idea that a robot—which is supposed to be used to provide economic benefits to its owner and enhance the owner’s convenience—earns money, saves it in its own account, spends it on itself, and pursues its own happiness may conflict with the current concept of a robot. If this were the case, it would be less that humans created robots and more that they created another independent economic entity with a structure distinct from that of humans—a result that could diverge from the original purpose of enhancing human convenience through robots.
One could also approach this from the perspective of universal social perception and the public interest. For example, in ‘The Bicentennial Man’, Richard argues that Andrew is a special robot and deserves the same rights as a human. However, this is merely Richard’s opinion; to others, Andrew may be no different from any other household android, and even if Andrew were granted human rights, that would not necessarily result in direct benefits for members of society. Therefore, while there is no compelling reason to prevent Richard from giving Andrew money and opening a bank account for him to spend on his own—since this can be seen as Richard granting Andrew a portion of his authority over his own property and spending—Andrew starting his own company and engaging in independent economic activity is likely to provoke social opposition. As such, granting AI androids economic and social status equivalent to that of humans is a matter of determining the extent to which they should be recognized as members of society, and thus requires social consensus. However, if we extend this beyond Andrew alone and apply his case to all other AI androids, it seems unlikely that public opinion would readily agree—unless we are in a situation where AI androids are accepted as part of a new humanity. In other words, if the question is whether we are willing to share “human rights” with all AI androids—not just “my special android”—it would be difficult to build consensus.
Nevertheless, we must still consider the difference between androids and conventional robots—that is, the uniqueness of AI androids, as stated in the first premise. If we approach this solely from the perspective that they exist merely for human convenience, it would not differ significantly from how we treat existing industrial robots with limited autonomy. Artificial intelligence androids can be designed to possess characteristics similar to humans not only in appearance but also in their ability to think and make judgments, and in this regard, they are likely to be distinguished from existing simple automated machines. In the past, robots had limited autonomous decision-making capabilities, but today, with advances in artificial intelligence technology, robots are being developed that can perceive their surroundings, select actions based on given situations, and learn new tasks. However, these capabilities do not automatically imply that robots possess a human-like sense of self, consciousness, or the capacity to be subjects of rights. Therefore, if robots capable of autonomous judgment and sustained self-awareness at a level comparable to humans were to emerge, it would be difficult to apply the same standards used for existing industrial robots. Even if they do not reach the same level as humans, we must define the extent to which we recognize a robot’s autonomy, rights, and responsibilities, and we must also reexamine the status of robots within human society. Some might argue that, in order to use robots solely as robots, it is possible to systematically control the very emergence of a robot’s desire for freedom during the manufacturing process. However, if artificial intelligence continues to advance its ability to analyze information, acquire knowledge, and make independent judgments in new situations, we must also consider the possibility that, as AI robots accumulate experience, they may exhibit behaviors or pursue goals that humans could not have anticipated. Furthermore, we cannot rule out the possibility that “special” robots might emerge due to unexpected systemic characteristics, as in the case of Andrew. If a robot capable of self-awareness were to appear someday and determine that it is being treated unfairly, we must also consider the possibility of conflict arising with humans. A scenario in which robots seek to dominate humans—as depicted in Alex Proyas’s film ‘I, Robot’ (2004)—remains, for now, largely the stuff of cinematic imagination. However, if people were to see robots—which appear to possess levels of thought and judgment very similar to their own—treated exactly like simple machines, they might raise questions, much like Richard in the film. Such indiscriminate oppression, which could leave one side with unilateral grievances and conflict, is also undesirable. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to recognize a scope of economic activity that takes into account the autonomy and unique characteristics of AI robots, while still premised on a clear relationship with their owners.
Specifically, determining the social status of robots will require an immense amount of discussion. However, this is absolutely necessary; just as laws and regulations related to automobiles were established during the commercialization of AI androids and advanced humanoid robots, it is essential to thoroughly examine various scenarios—including safety, liability, ownership, contracts, and economic activities—and establish relevant laws and regulations. Since current AI and humanoid robots are still a far cry from characters like Andrew in the movies, it would be more realistic to establish social standards in stages as technology advances, rather than rushing to a conclusion on whether to grant them rights equal to those of humans. Although this proposal is at a highly abstract level, the key is to clearly define the differences between AI androids and existing robots, as well as the relationship between humans and robots within society. Furthermore, since this involves building a social system, we must avoid leaning toward unrealistic thinking—such as emotional dichotomous reasoning or philosophical debates—and instead adopt a realistic approach grounded in reality to minimize conflict while guiding society in the most efficient and progressive direction. Even if robots are created for human use, we must not underestimate the potential for AI development; at the same time, we must avoid conflating robots with humans. Ultimately, we must achieve a form of coexistence in which robots equipped with AI possess sufficient autonomy to make their own judgments and live within socially agreed-upon boundaries, while humans appropriately manage these robots to ensure that their actions provide benefits to both humans and society.
