Believes hes a human being marrying another human being. Finally, you have the idea which is that in oshd torder to fit jurist, you have to understand, sympathize and use the norms of your community because thats part of the complicated relationship there dworkins thought, a fit between what you want to say and the justification of those norms. Here again, i had some thoughts. I dont think the point that is made in this paper, i think its a bit too strong. First of all, once again, many people come to Yale Law School from many countries around the world. They are not americans. They have been exposed to American Culture through tuition, perhaps. And theyre ab mere fact that y not share a communitys norms does not qualify you making good, legal arguments. Secondly, its a very strange argument to come from two canadians. After all, canada is part of the British Commonwealth. One thing we know about the British Commonwealth is that British Commonwealth exported colonial law. It was the law of the British Empire imposed on other countries. The idea was when you do, that would become a law of a particular british colony. And even though the judges did not share much in terms of the norms and communities and ideas and values of the colonial powers. Of the people in the colonies. It was still the case that you could take appeals to the privy council. For many years, you could appeal. And the judges who would sit often had very little connection to the norms and 1rvalues of th community. I dont think that you can make a strong connection. And even if im wrong about that, its hard to believe that john roberts robot doesnt share the northerns and is part of the community. He thinks hes human, he goes to american law school. He does extremely well there. He lives a life in the United States. He adopts all of the customs and behaves, at least, as if hes engaged in them. It looks like hes a member of the community. John robert social securis is n lawyer. He has a great talent. The talent is the talent of persuasion. Understand your audience and its needs. And sympathize with its norms and values. Articulate in way that is rez nate with their values, norms and considerations. It almost would seem to follow that he has all of the characteristics that they claire are necessary to be a fit jurist. They begin by saying in the hypothetical, that this robot, john roberts, could pass a touring test on steroids. Thats their phrase. They then go onto say its simply a behaviorist account. It may or may not be true. But i want to argue that the touring test on steroids is different. It is everything they could possibly want in terms of asking whether or not the entity can participate in a form of life. It understands itself as being part of you. It develops the forms. Dan sperbur wrote a very interesting paper in which he argued that the human ability to reason was not developed to know the truth, but rather to persuade people and to get them to coop rate. If thats the case, he would seem to pass any test we devise. What are the features of living in a community. That we think are necessary to be called human. Those are the questions i have. Grat. Well, thank you very much. Ill just start with a couple of brief remarks that i hope go into particular the last point that is you made. Were all so confident that the audience will have questions to ask and its appropriate to spend some time to address what jack has raised for us, but, also, at the same time, leave some space for others. I guess i would start off by just maybe speaking for a moment about how to cast the hypothetical. One has to be extremely careful. The conclusion that is one can derive from that thought experience are as strong oar as weak as the thought experience itself. What we tried to do, which jack alluded to, was we really wanted to build a hypothetical that stacked the deck in favor of jrr. We wanted to do that. We wanted to do that with the goal of raising the question if theres no doubt to passing the touring test, 245 we still might find reasons to say that even if a robot has reached this level of functional capacity, that we still might say at the end of the day that it is not adequate or not fit. For playing the role of a judge. As we go to say in the paper quiet clearly, very different than other human activities that involve rules, such as for example, driving cars, et cetera. So that was the task we set for ourselves. Can we come up with a reason that is not a slam dunk, but just to allow the robot to play the role of judge. One of the reasons why, at least from my long perspective, that i think that this is a worthwhile task, is because of the great emphasis that has been placed on the touring test. Both formally for people who know that paper backwards but also informally. This idea that reaching a certain level of functional capacity would, in and of itself, convince us that we ought to treat the robots in particular kinds of ways. And so sort of with that in mind, a couple of responses that i would say at the outset, i just want to be very clear that the way i jotted it down, and maybe i jotted it down too quickly, is that one of the appeals you made to us alongside the discussion of the skilled relater rigs, is that jrr understood itself to be among us. For us, it would be very interesting to find that they could have reanimated him. The mere fact that jrr understood being among us, the mere fact that he was a skilled relater rigs to be able to behave with goals, would understand jrr to have to be among the community of those who carry out these very particulariz particularized kinds of human activities. Those are things that show that jrr behaved in accordance with those rules. But the questions are up for grabs. Thats the question before us, is to decide, for example, whether jrr was a rule follower. And so sort of with that in mind, as just one of the opening sets of things. I just warant want to say that the way that you put it was that our arguments revolves around a set of assumptions. We saw our project very differently. We saw our project as not making those asumplgss, but rather thinking about it the other way around. What would be the lmts of proof. And ill just make one more comment and im sorry for taking so long. But, for us, i think it was really its important to see that the question that were asking is not whether jrr is a member of the Human Community or whether jrr would be considered a person or would be raised in the final session of yesterday. Ours 1 a question about whether jrr could, in a meaningfully, in any meaningful sense be understood to be in a position to carry out the 5 00 tiactivit human judging thank you very much. I dont have too much else to say, but i do want to say that its important that we can see that certain ly at least in the appearance, you have legal arguments being made, you have decisions being rendered. We can see that from the outside set. But this paper is really focused on a particular practice. The practice of judging. What is it we expected of judges. What do they owe us . What is the relation shich . I, for one, and i think he would probably agree theres a relational aspect to judging in Human Society that we find extremely important. Which is why we place thirddegree robot on this long and storied history as really being one of the defining actors in the history of a particular community. So it es i fully admit there a intuitions. When con fronted with that, its having to justify those intuitions, again, in a pure purely counter action offense. When jack was talking, it would be whether we had a robot comfortedble of that stature or that policy as long as we were sure that the robot did consider itself human. Would that be a precondition with certain kinds of authority. And what would that say . So were not able to get into the whole con september of law as authoritative. Its ababsolutely about the deeper question. What is a robot . How does it relate to us . But it is very much about this particular practice of judging. You say its not about whether or not a robot is humt. But at the end of the day, i keep reading this paper and imsay thats exactly what its all about. Ill giver you an example. When jewish immigrants come from Eastern Europe and russia around the turn of the 20th century, they start to go to law schools. And when they go to law schools, many people say well, theyre very clever. Theyre able to argue very well, but they dont really understand the angle of american genius behind our institution. And no matter how smart these jews are, they really live in Eastern Europe. They were never really understand our institutions. So when brand dice is no, maam nated as the first jewish justice of the Supreme Court, you get so mume grumbling of th sort of exactly whats there the paper. Hell never get it. Hell never really be a part of our community. And we really cant trust him with the authority of the community. Theres an important way to disz ting wish. One is that they were human beings and that john rob erts robot is not a human being. But you dont want to take that answer, right . And if you reject that as the justificati justification, then i want to understand the difference tweend or whether you accept the argument against. Thats what i want to know. One way out is to say hes not human. As long as youre not human, we cant trust you with authority. I think its been pretty clear to us, that the biggest challenge in this paper in answering this question is a way to respond to it that doesnt invoke some form of essentialism. Whether its human, et cetera. And, in fact, the path that we selected in the sort of cues and inspiration was with the hope that vichtenstein and then hart to follow,was that those are ways of expressing why this entity might not be said to be fit to be a judge because theres no way in which it, a deluded robot, could truly engage in rule fol lot following. You pamake some points which ar difficult for that hypothetical. But in any event, if the aspects were our attempts to try not to debase the arguenment that fall from your example. Functional capacity is not enough. I dont know if you found it satisfying or not, but i found it pushed back against the example that you gave and said they righthand turn the same thing. I have been uncomfortable with skirting of and sisessentiy fudging of the skirtish line. I would slightly take a different attack for me. One of the things thats raised from this paper is a lot of our choices around sooumuperadvanc robots, and you can critique the politics. I talk in my brazen american constitutional law. I talk about the possibility in a state of full knowledge could invest certain kinds of robots. Thats a very different kbe. And that is a political question that can be subjected to both political considerations. And also constitutional norms. I would say that i would agree with you and i want to push back a little bit on the slippery slope trajectory of skirting the essentialist line. Also to say that the Politics Around it would make, for me, would have appreciable differences with the motivations and the reasons and the justifications for taking the decision. Im trying to find ways to simplify the ways that would be theres always risks, but one of the current debates that people who are interested in automation and robotics will look at a policy debate thats going on right now in universities is the idea of using these robot systems for grading essays. So when that debate was going on, i was very interested in a response. His point was, in essence, it doesnt matter whether the robot can perform more consistently that ultimately, by allowing robots to grade essays, missing the point. All the of these things are n s nested in the proposition. I actually think that this is an interesting point to talk about the recent controversy in canada over the voiding, the court held that the poimt of justice mark nadone was not interested with the ordinary act. And the issue there was that theres a special reserve of three seats, four judges, from quebec which has a civil law tradition. It has always been considered as important. This was a depar schur from past precedent. There was a very interesting debate over whether it was right that it should be read in that way. There were many arguments that was unfair. And you were narrowing the poolt and you were casting certain kinds of aspurgss. The difference is that the appointment was challenged very soon. And so nadal had never participated in any cases. And, in fact, rather dramatically, the supreme kourpt issue add release saying he would not be allowed in the building and that they would not be talking to him until this sort of quasi banishment. It was taking a hard line about a particular statutory provision that did draw a bright line that some people would regard as not very senseble. But that you needed the bright line no order to cabin and constrain the appointment process in a way that was predictable. So, again, the court said, ultimately, this is not about this individual. This is about maintaining a routine and predictable route for appointments for these seats which fulfill a particular purpose. Michael asked me to face a little more this way. My name is ryan, i am a law professor at the university of washington. And i just so greatly enjoy in this paper, and i really, also, greatly enjoyed your comments, jack. A couple Different Things that i noticed about the paper. Jrr is a robot, but jrr is a very specific robot. Jrr is a robot, but jrr is a very specific robot. Right . The fact d hes made by a corporation, which explains a couple things. But hes made by a corporation and the point of the matter 1 he lives for a particular period of time in a particular community, right . But that is contingent. So all of these things are con tin jent. And then at the margins we can sort of reexamine through various filters. The second thing i would say, i just loved 2 comment about hart and dworkin. But i thought the player missing in my mind was ron fuhler. It really kind of especially as dworkin lays it out, it actually flows from, right, a couple of different aspects to follow. There is a law distinction that he lays out there. And even though its not quite as developed as d wrksz orkins. It is so much more steeped of something. With dworkin, i think to myself well, hercules can do some of this work because theres these principles out there and he can gather them and zint size them. Maybe he cant do what fuhler wants to do. Can i just make sure i understood the first question . I have understood your point about the idea that jrrs specificity is, in a sense, contingent. You sort of threw in the comment on the iterative approach. I just mentioned the way that we decide whether or not this is really responding to jacks coloring of everything. Is it sufficient for what we have in robot Social Security an opportunity to exquisitely ma nip late certain aspect that is we cant do with people. You can ask whether ets the beginning of life or you can ask questions about memory or the nature of identity. If theres an exact robot replica, then is that enough . In other words, somebody was a member of the relevant community, right . And they got steeped in revant community. And then they were copied exactly by so for me, its the potential to exquiz sitly manipulate the robot here that lends some. And i wonder whether you thought about maybe doing some of those manipulations and then applying your same tasks. So, on that point, ryan, one of the things that i learn from this project is you looked to all of the great thought experience which have been successful in philosophy. You really see how it is to build a successful thought experimentment i think one of the things that was happening with is we were sort of, ochb the one hand, wanting thought experiment to have sufficient realism. We imagined the idea of a robot coming into being as a research and development experiment, et cetera, et cetera. One of the realities is we dont raise every robot from earth. They dont have the normal human span of life. That part of the hypothetical, i think, maybe worked to our advantage a little bit in that i think it would be harder to answer jacks questions about well, why cant we say the robot had prescriptive training if it had brn born or raised as a child. The fact that we chose to go into realism stacked the deck. Believe me, we thought about different ways to cast the hypothetical in that way. But i do think to the extent of living with the hypothetical that we did, that this robot is deluded into thinking its human. It didnt have a child. All of these kinds of things does make it harder for us to understand it. To be in any sense, a member of the community, let alone a full member of the community. Ill speak to the second point, ryan, thank you very much. So i realize that we could have been sneakily inserted. We do think that theres an organic trajectory. And we have this opening provided by one of the few people that we find could address the legal reasoning of ai and mention dworkin. As we tried to articulate there the paper, we felt that was a nice contrast. One of the first wrds i jury trialed down was hercules. Now, we have said, i think, in the pher, that were not in a position in the paper to do all of the work to justify ur selection of dworkin. That being said, absolutely. And i love lan fuhler. Before, jack, john if you want to say anything in response to ryans question about fuhler and its value here. Hercules jumped out at us because hes not a robot, but it shares a lot of same features. Thafgs one of the reasons why he found his place there, for sure. Just one more point. For us, what we hope was part of an interesting contribution with this paper was that people who are commenting in this field and sunstein has a good example of that. Have been so focused. And the debate is a question of will we ever get there. What we warranted to do in this paper was to asumt lets say we get there. And then really sort of ask, does that mean its a slam dunk in the way that touring seems to suggest it is. And we think no. Can i just Say Something . I, quite frankly, dont care whether you use hart, dworkin or anyone. When i read your paper, what i think your paper is about is a deep question. The deep question is under what circumstances can we say that an entity has sympathy for others, understands their lot with anothers lot. Understands himself to be a part of community. Its a question of reciprocity. Even though you phrase it in terms of jurisprudence, thats the reason that i thought your hypothetical is a real problem. Youve structured it in such a way that it looks like you have con dilgszs. Thats why i talked about the history of rhetoric. Rhetoric is about these qualities. The appeal to ethos or pathos. And not just logos. So youve con instructed this entities. One toggle that i would turn off is does he unders