By Faith Obafemi
Although later debunked, one recent episode in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) was the viral artificial intelligence (AI) generated images of Elon Musk kissing a robot claimed to be his robot wife. That most netizens believed this fake news propelled by deep fake technology is not the focus of this blog entry. I draw your attention to the legal considerations of a robot as a relative. As wife or husband, daughter or son, sister or brother, mother or father, nephew or niece, and aunt or uncle. In particular, should humans be allowed to marry robots? Scholars and commentators are currently divided, with those for, citing freedom of choice and those against, citing moral basis. I lean towards the former and argue that humans should be allowed to marry robots within certain legal boundaries that mirrors what is allowed for human-to-human marriages. This blog entry bases its argument on legal analysis. A moral/ethical analysis of whether it is right or wrong is minimal, not the blog entry’s focus.
Firstly, I debunk the claim that robots cannot be recognized as legal persons because they are unfeeling objects. Then I give a bird’s-eye view of human-robots relationship from a legal lens. Finally, I list some legal boundaries within which the allowance should be made.
1. Are Robots Also Persons?
At the time of writing, Sophia, a robot by Hanson Robotics, a Hong Kong company, is the only robot with citizenship status conferred by the government of Saudi Arabia. Sophia also holds a United Nations title as the Innovation Champion of the United Nations Development Program. With a billion-dollar industry and the use of robots in homes (as companions or caretakers for the sick, elderly, children, autism patients, etc.) and at work (as assistants in industrial work. These types of robots have evolved since the first one by Ford Motors in 1961), new legal debates analysing the legal status of robots are springing up daily. Before discussing the possibilities of robot-human marriages, we must first consider robot personhood.
In the West, a person is seen as an individual or entity which the state recognizes as a legal subject, while in the European Union (EU), a person is a living being with “traces of biological or social existence”. The West seems to recognise both natural (human beings with breath and blood flowing in their veins.) and artificial persons (classic examples are corporations and businesses incorporated under a government. But sometimes, things like temples (in India) and rivers (in New Zealand) are granted legal personhood by the state). At the same time, the EU limits persons to living beings.
This traditional position by the EU led some scholars to claim that robots cannot be considered a person because they have no feelings like living beings. At this point, it is important to recognize the slight distinction between natural persons (human beings) and legal persons or legal entities (artificial like corporations). I am of the opinion that the legal person or legal entity distinction can cover for robots. Although, some scholars think it is “not a good idea” to give robots legal personhood. On the flip side, humans add medical prosthetics like limbs, artificial hearts and other artificial body parts. Does that make humans lose their personhood?
To expand the limitations of who is a person in the EU, a draft report by the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs recommends classifying robots as electronic persons. The phrase “electronic persons” was used in the report with the aim of conferring legal personhood status to autonomous robots, granting them certain rights and obligations. The report stated that granting robots legal personality would confer “specific rights and obligations, including that of making good any damage they may cause, and applying electronic personality to cases where robots make smart autonomous decisions or otherwise interact with third parties independently”.
Perhaps inspired by science fiction introducing mechas and replicas, some scholars and commentators believe that the lines between humans and robots will continue blurring. Most make this claim with respect to robots with anthropomorphic traits that give them human-like features. Yet, there are studies showing that humans develop attachments to robots, whether anthropomorphic or not, by virtue of frequent and prolonged contact in the same environment. An example is Roomba, a cleaning robot that some humans report feeling “bad” for it whenever it gets stuck.
Based on the foregoing arguments, I align myself with the conclusions of David Levy in his 2017 lecture that intelligent robots should be given legal personhood and arguments against, such as robots being unfeeling objects, are weak. Building on this, I now provide a general overview of human-robot (HR) marriages.
2. A Bird’s Eye View of Human-Robot Marriages
Regulation of technology generally focuses on regulating the application of the said technology and not the technology itself. A good example of this is the GDPR that regulates the use of information technology for the collection, transmission and processing of personal information. Regulation of use is also why the United States banned the importation of child sex robots (Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots – The CREEPER Act).
Mark Goldfeder and Yosef Razin put forward three condition precedents that a robot marriage must meet to be recognized under civil law. The conditions include (1) the ability to give consent, (2) an understanding of what is being consenting to and (3) the capacity to make decisions. On consent, Mark and Yosef argue that intelligent robots can give consent. However, the dilemma is where the robot is programmed to give consent, does that translate to coerced consent? For understanding, a robot that gives consent obviously understands what it is getting into. For the capacity to make decisions, robots are considered autonomous objects able to reach decisions (give an output) after being given inputs.
Legalizing human-robot marriages could improve the social environment for the human involved, who may suffer discrimination from people around them. Drawing from the context of same-sex marriages, societal pressure and judgmental treatment caused gay families stress. There is a high probability for a similar scenario to play out for robots and human intimate relationships.
It’s not all a bed of roses. Arguments against allowing humans to marry robots include the possibility of abuse, procreation and parenting, and religion. Some scholars argue for and against the criminalization of robot rape. With the ongoing advancement in biotechnology, we may no longer need a human womb for procreation. Surrogacy is legal in some countries in Europe.
Having given a general overview of HR marriages, I now suggest some legal boundaries within which it should be allowed. After all, even if it were a right, such rights are not absolute. There are fundamental human rights that are absolute such as freedom from torture and slavery, while others are not, such as freedom of expression. These boundaries could also counterbalance perceived arguments against HR marriages.
3. Legal Boundaries for Human-Robot Marriages
In human-to-human relations, marriages have evolved over several centuries and millennia from interracial to same-sex couples being allowed to marry. For the past two decades, same-sex marriages have been allowed in the Netherlands (one of the very first countries to legalize gay marriages). With HRI now in our daily lives, human-robot marriages appear to be the next frontier. Some of the legal boundaries suggested below are mirrored in human-to-human marriages.
Before marriage between a robot and a human is allowed, such a robot must be registered under the legal regime established by the country where the marriage will occur. In most jurisdictions, marriage licenses (after going through the necessary public announcements, bans, legal age confirmation, monogamy, etc.) are required to obtain a marriage certificate. Intending HR couples must also obtain a marriage license. Robots created to look, talk or behave like children or minors must be expressly prohibited in all forms.
To prevent situations where people create robot spouses in the likeness of a celebrity or someone they know, regulations allowing HR marriages should prohibit robots that are replicas of living or dead persons. The prohibition should remain in place regardless of whether the living or dead person consents.
4. Conclusion
Whether as virtual assistants or as a chatbot, most people have daily interactions with robots that consequently lead to emotional attachment or even dependence. Beyond communications, the market for sex robots is growing. All of these show that intimate HRI could lead to people wanting to marry their robots. As already argued, robots can also be conferred legal personhood, and their unfeeling nature is not a hindrance. Having obtained legal personhood, HR marriages should be allowed so long as they meet three suggested preconditions of consent, understanding and decision-making. Considering that granting the right to marry is not absolute, some legal boundaries in the form of compulsory registration, obtaining a marriage licence, and prohibiting child/minor and living/dead person replicas should be established. HR marriage allowance raises new legal issues for further research on inheritance, divorce, parental rights and custody, conservatorship and adoption.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Faith Obafemi is a lawyer and tech policy analyst focusing on frontier technologies. She has published and presented novel topics in law and technology at the Tony Blair Institute and the University of Cambridge.