A few months ago, in January 2018, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee approved a report that outlines a possible legal framework to regulate the interactions between a) humans, and b) robots and Artificial Intelligence systems. The report is quite revolutionary. It proposes, e.g., giving certain types of robots and AI systems personhood, as "electronic persons": These electronic persons would have rights and obligations, and the report suggests that they should obey Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robotics. The report also advises that the manufacturers of robots and AI systems should build in a'kill switch' to be able to deactivate them. Another recommendation is that a European Agency for Robotics and AI be established that would be capable of responding to new opportunities and challenges arising from technological advancements in robotics. The EU is not alone in its desire to regulate AI: similar (though less far reaching) reports were published in Japan and in the UK.

A few months ago, in January 2018, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee approved a report that outlines a possible legal framework to regulate the interactions between a) humans, and b) robots and Artificial Intelligence systems. The report is quite revolutionary. It proposes, e.g., giving certain types of robots and AI systems personhood, as "electronic persons": These electronic persons would have rights and obligations, and the report suggests that they should obey Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robotics. The report also advises that the manufacturers of robots and AI systems should build in a'kill switch' to be able to deactivate them. Another recommendation is that a European Agency for Robotics and AI be established that would be capable of responding to new opportunities and challenges arising from technological advancements in robotics. The EU is not alone in its desire to regulate AI: similar (though less far reaching) reports were published in Japan and in the UK.

The plan by the European Commission to give robots legal status of "electronic person" is quite interesting. Imagine your car with rights. I can just see this changing into something ambiguous, reaching the point where it gets out of control as more and more persons want to add to what is already there. Over a hundred leading experts tried to talk some sense into the European Commission. These experts tried to show the extent to which creating legal personality for robots could go wrong.

Despite how human-like they may act and appear, giving rights to robots may not be the best move. That was the consensus of 150 experts who weighed in on the discussion on Thursday, in light of the European Parliament's recent question of whether or not robots need special rights. A team of 150 experts in robotics, artificial intelligence, law, medical science and ethics wrote an open letter to the European Union advising that robots not be given special legal status as "electric persons," CNN reported. The letter says that giving robots human rights would be unhelpful. "From an ethical and legal perspective, creating a legal personality for a robot is inappropriate whatever the legal status model," the letter states.

It may seem more like a moral dilemma posed in an episode of Star Trek, but the question of whether robots are people has European lawmakers at loggerheads. The issue first arose in January 2017, thanks to a paragraph of text buried deep in a European Parliament report, that advised creating a'legal status for robots'. Its primary purpose was in order to establish who is liable if the intelligent machines cause any damage. However, experts are now opposing the move, saying that it is'inappropriate' from a legal and ethical perspective and could breach human rights. It may seem more like a moral dilemma posed in an episode of Star Trek, but the question of whether robots are people has European lawmakers at loggerheads.

A lively discussion is currently under way in the business world regarding possible applications of intelligent IT systems and autonomous machines and equipment. Rapid technical development in these areas has spurred the imagination of users. The application areas are extremely diverse, and include production robots in industry, drones and self-driving delivery robots in logistics and warehousing, healthcare robots and driverless vehicles. What sounds like science fiction has already become reality in some cases, with intelligent robots being particularly common in production and logistics. From a legal viewpoint, there are still a host of unanswered questions around robotics and the artificial intelligence (AI) incorporated into robots. The European Parliament accordingly passed a resolution with recommendations to the European Commission on civil law rules on robotics (2015/2103(INL)) on 16 February 2017; the resolution was adopted with 396 votes in favour, 123 against and 85 abstentions.

Science fiction likes to depict robots as autonomous machines, capable of making their own decisions and often expressing their own personalities. Yet we also tend to think of robots as property, and as lacking the kind of rights that we reserve for people. But if a machine can think, decide and act on its own volition, if it can be harmed or held responsible for its actions, should we stop treating it like property and start treating it more like a person with rights? What if a robot achieves true self-awareness? Should it have equal rights with us and the same protection under the law, or at least something similar?

In January, the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament put forward a draft report urging the creation and adoption of EU-wide rules to corral the myriad issues arising from the widespread use of robots and AI--a development, it says, is "poised to unleash a new industrial revolution." It's an interesting read, and a valiant effort to get a handle on how to standardize and regulate the ever-expanding robot universe: drones, industrial robots, care robots, medical robots, entertainment robots, robots in farming--you name it, they're all in there. Beginning with Frankenstein's monster, Prague's golem, and Karel Čapek's robot and ending with a code of ethics for robotics engineers and some daunting lists of "shoulds" for robot designers and end users, the 22-page worry catalog toggles between practical concerns about liability, accountability, and safety--who's going to pay when a robot or a self-driving car has an accident?--and The practical concerns addressed include a call for the creation of a European agency for robotics and artificial intelligence to support the European Commission in its regulation- and legislation-making efforts. Definitions and classifications of robots and smart robots need to be detailed, and a robot registration system described.

Science fiction has already explored the theme of robot rights, such as the film Bicentennial Man. Science fiction likes to depict robots as autonomous machines, capable of making their own decisions and often expressing their own personalities. Yet we also tend to think of robots as property, and as lacking the kind of rights that we reserve for people. But if a machine can think, decide and act on its own volition, if it can be harmed or held responsible for its actions, should we stop treating it like property and start treating it more like a person with rights? What if a robot achieves true self-awareness?

While everyone's eyes were on the Brexit vote and staggering economic implications this week, my mind was drifting to another crucial development within the EU. A draft European Parliament motion was recently put forward to begin to classify robots as "electronic persons." In a response to the proliferation of robotics and AI in the workplace, policy makers are attempting to stay ahead of the curve and preempt challenges they foresee around bureaucratic issues such as taxation and legal liability. As corporations rely more and more on automation and less and less on human workers, a new taxation structure will be required to ensure that governments still have funding flowing into their coffers. Moreover, as robotics become more sophisticated and we hand them increasingly critical tasks, issues around actor liability and insurance become very complicated.