The Fundamental Articles of I.AM Cyborg Law

Abstract

Author Isaac Asimov first fictionally proposed the “Three Laws of Robotics” in 1942. The word “cyborg” appeared in 1960, describing imagined beings with both artificial and biological parts. My own 1973 neologisms, “neural plug compatibility”, and “softwiring” predicted the computer software-driven future evolution of man-machine neural interconnection and synthesis. Today, Human-AI Brain Interface cyborg experiments and “brain-hacking” devices are being trialed. The growth also of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven Data Analytics software and increasing instances of “Government by Algorithm” have revealed these advances as being largely unregulated, with insufficient legal frameworks. In a recent article, I noted that, with automation of legal processes and judicial decision-making being increasingly discussed, RoboJudge has all but already arrived; and I discerned also the cautionary Castell’s Second Dictum: “You cannot construct an algorithm that will reliably decide whether or not any algorithm is ethical”. With few established elements of law and jurisprudence available that readily map to the Machine Species, any new “Cyborg Law” has to be drafted on a tabula rasa basis. Cyborg Law furthermore needs to consider that by “Machine Species” could be meant one that is self-aware existentially, with a distinct legal personality, which I here christen the Intelligent Autonomous Machine (“I.AM”) Species: sum ergo cogito. This paper develops Fundamental Articles of Cyborg Law (“FACLs”) by way of setting-out putative legal text for a draft Cyborg Act 2021, constituting the first substantive attempt to develop a tangible Cyborg Law. This is work-in-progress, to which others are invited to contribute.