IF YOU thought 2016 was a year of political turmoil, I believe a bigger revolution is soon to head for a democracy near you: AI.
Generally speaking, technology advances exponentially, and it鈥檚 not impossible that we are about to see the first machines that are as intelligent as the average human. AI researcher Ben Goertzel tells me he thinks that鈥檚 likely before 2030, but it could happen sooner if more resources are put into it.
The idea that your driverless car, robot dog or smartphone may soon be smarter than you is crazy to most people, but the growing promise of quantum computing could unleash the processing power needed. And once it happens, we must face a thorny ethical issue, that of rights for AI 鈥� .
Advertisement
鈥淚f we allowed sapient AIs to vote, does their cross in the box count the same as ours?鈥�
Granting AIs voting rights would raise many tricky questions and moral quandaries, in particular because there are a few billion computing devices on Earth. Even if just 10 per cent were judged to deserve personhood and given rights accordingly, they would massively swell the voting population in democracies.
Aspiring futurist politicians like myself may well wonder whether, instead of spending money to campaign for people鈥檚 votes, we should just buy AIs that can vote.
There are other conundrums. In the US, for example, there are concerns over the influence of a few in determining election outcomes. If a server that a robot uses for its consciousness is in Nevada, but its 鈥渂ody鈥� is in Ohio, where does its vote count? That choice could influence results in swing states and spark legal battles.
And if we allow sapient AIs to vote, does their cross in the box count the same as ours? What happens if intelligent machines clone themselves: will back-up copies and alternate selves all be legal voting entities?
These are still hypothetical questions, but with technology鈥檚 accelerating advance, some may need to be addressed soon after the Trump era.
And if we do enter an age where the robot vote is part of our electoral process, let鈥檚 hope that鈥檚 good news for rational debate.
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淥ne robot, one vote鈥�
