• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

- - - - -

Martine Rothblatt, Ph.D, J.D., M.B.A.

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 06 July 2005 - 08:25 PM

Nov 5, 2005 - ImmInst Atlanta Life Extension Conf.

Individual Speaker Abstract & Discussion Forum:

Posted Image Posted Image
Martine Rothblatt, Ph.D, J.D., M.B.A

Responsible for launching several satellite communications companies including Sirius and WorldSpace. Founder and CEO of United Therapeutics. Lead the International Bar Association's project to develop a draft Human Genome Treaty for the United Nations. Founder of the Teresem Movement. Filed the first court motion on AI Legal Rights.


Biocyberethics: should we stop a company from unplugging an intelligent computer?
by Martine Rothblatt

Attorney Dr. Martine Rothblatt filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent a corporation from disconnecting an intelligent computer in a mock trial at the International Bar Association conference in San Francisco, Sept. 16, 2003. The issue could arise in a real court within the next few decades, as computers achieve or exceed the information processing capability of the human mind and the boundary between human and machine becomes increasingly blurred.

Published on KurzweilAI.net Sept. 28, 2003.

Hearing: Dramatis personae

Judge: Joseph P. McMenamin, Attorney At Law, McGuideWoods

Plaintiff's Attorney: Dr. Martine A. Rothblatt, partner, Mahon, Patusk, Rothblatt & Fisher, Chartered

Defendant's Attorney: Marc N. Bernstein, founder and principal, The Bernstein Law Group and Technology and Law Commentator, ZDTV (now TechTV)

BINA48: Bina Aspen, Project Director, United Therapeutics Corp.

A webcast and transcript of the hearing are available.

More: http://www.kurzweila...es/art0594.html


Man and the Machines
It's time to start thinking about how we might grant legal rights to computers.

By Benjamin Soskis

LAST YEAR, AT A MOCK TRIAL HELD DURING THE BIENNIAL CONVENTION of the International Bar Association in San Francisco, Martine Rothblatt argued an especially tough case. The difficulty for Rothblatt, an attorney-entrepreneur and pioneer in the satellite communications industry, was not that she represented an unsympathetic client. Far from it—the plaintiff's story of confronting corporate oppressors moved the large audience. The problem was that the plaintiff was a computer.

According to the trial scenario, a fictitious company created a powerful computer, BINA48, to serve as a stand-alone customer relations department, replacing scores of human 1-800 telephone operators. Equipped with the processing speed and the memory capacity of 1,000 brains, the computer was designed with the ability to think autonomously and with the emotional intelligence necessary to communicate and empathize with addled callers.

By scanning confidential memos, BINA48 learned that the company planned to shut it down and use its parts to build a new model. So it sent a plaintive e-mail to local lawyers, ending with the stirring plea, "Please agree to be my counsel and save my life. I love every day that I live. I enjoy wonderful sensations by traveling throughout the World Wide Web. I need your help!" The computer offered to pay them with money it had raised while moonlighting as an Internet researcher.

More: http://www.legalaffa...is_janfeb05.msp

#2 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 09 November 2005 - 08:45 PM

Martine Rothblatt power point presentation:


#3 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 29 November 2005 - 06:04 AM

Dr. Rothblatt's presentation via online video:

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 th3hegem0n

  • Guest
  • 379 posts
  • 4

Posted 01 December 2005 - 01:03 AM

*petitions for a better answer to Goertzel's question about the Singularity*

in case you missed it (this is completely paraphrased...):

Ben: So how does your view take into account the danger of an AI that [starts a Singularity]?
Rothblatt: It would be against the law

Since when did flies make effective laws governing humans, according to the flies' self-interest? [tung]

The disappointment being: The danger of an AI starting a Singularity is that the entire future of humanity and the universe is shifted directly into the control of the AI.
This is an extremely grave existential risk, stemming from any given person who has a computer and wants to create an AI. The law is far from sufficient to account for this depth of security (the law pre-Singularity I mean).

The answer I (and I presume many Singularitarians) was looking for: The danger of an AI Singularity is increasing every day, and is a very significant existential risk that can only be countered by an aggressive, well funded organization that would be established to develop a verifiably Friendly AI in a minimal time span. The best example of an organization that could potentially be sufficient to meet these criteria is the Singularity Institute (www.singinst.org).

Although, points to Martine for mentioning SIAI in her presentation tangentially.

#5 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 01 December 2005 - 05:32 AM


You may wish to know that the Terasem Movement is sponsoring a Colloquium in FL Dec 10 to discuss issues related to your question:


Listen in via toll-free conf. call.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users