Some are very limited, they talk and act like stereotypical robots.
Others have almost every trait of a human, but stories say they lack something that makes them human. Sometimes they CAN be made identical but they are given limitations, such as Blade Runner.
The highest order are indistinguishable including consciousness. They deserve all rights and considerations of humans.
And I guess that's a bit of a problem. If a human talks and acts like a stereotypical robot, we don't exactly have a mechanism for deciding which rights and considerations he or she should be allocated. Generally, though, we remove some of the usual rights, since such a person is unable to cope with the full scope of the society, and we want to promote coping with the society.
Perversely enough, most of mankind lacks something that makes us human, though. Rights are quickly eroded when an enthusiastic courtroom gets to it, as the somethings missing (conscience, empathy, social graces, correct genitals, correct political leaning, wealth) are fairly easily demonstrated. But since most of mankind won't be happy with the eroding, the courtrooms are made to err on the side of caution and to treat us all as fully human, despite the demonstrable shortcomings: even an emotionless killing automaton gets the same starter kit of rights, regardless of whether some of those are then stripped from him or her in the process of judging the associated actions (or the potential for actions).
Built things may cover a broader spectrum of humanity than humans do. But we won't err on the side of caution and give a talking toaster full human rights as a starter kit. We don't do that even with cats or common crows, which can be sapient and sentient enough to trump certain humans.
At some point, something will have to give. Blade Runner is a fun treatise of this something being stretched to the utmost limit, with the "skin jobs" just about as far removed from humanity as those of different skin color. LDS in turn doesn't hesitate to give us an exocomp that essentially is just that talking toaster (only she talks a lot), and indicate that the something has indeed given here and the exocomp has the full starter kit of rights at the very least.
Anything in between may happen, and that's the interesting part with the most extensive implications: what set of human rights does a machine get when it's mentally exactly and demonstrably on par with an IQ23 human who likes to tear limbs off little children and eat her excretions a lot? And what human rights does that yield to a hyena?
(Also, too drunk yesterday: no, carbon fiber skeletons would not make an android organic by the chemical definition. But the grease between the joints would.)
Timo Saloniemi
