DECRYPT - becoming human

\0xDynamite dreamingforward at
Tue Dec 29 17:34:58 PST 2020

Darn, For #4, I meant that the droid must be reprogrammable to admit a
new Owner in its own settings, whereby the droid is required to follow
instructions of its Owner until the other conditions change this.

It may or may not be wise to program them with the laws of robotics,
if Man's laws and these are in effect.  After all, someone bought the
droid, it shouldn't necessarily spend it's time/energy or risk it's
hardware for someone else's life.


On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 6:54 PM \0xDynamite <dreamingforward at> wrote:
> >  But I remain optimistic. Time and time again the anarchist way of organizing proves itself superior.
> This will remain true until we have a space we can call our own.
> Every government should reserve 1-10% of their land and budget for
> "anarchic" experiments where the people. not the government. can make
> new communities that perhaps are even exempt from law -- if they can
> keep it on their own turf.
> There is no government that is so perfect as to not allow some portion
> of monies and holdings to be petitionable and used by the People.
> > The *Cypherpunk 2027* is another exercise in that. Six years at full warp and we could bring the singularity forward, institute global cryptoanarchy and anticipate intelligent machines passing any test.
> > Tomorrow belongs to us.
> Yeah, it is actually ready.  I don't know how anyone else knows this,
> but consider these rules for androids:
> To balance the power of the androids and Man.  Any android, free roaming;
> 1. must have an (manufacturer and model) identification printed
> visibly on its unit and/or queryable by voice.
> 2. remains the property of its owner until 1) it breaks a law, 2)
> becomes inoperative without the custody of the owner.
> 3. In the event of the former it must be remanded to the Police (where
> laws can determine what fine or otherwise towards the owner or
> manufacturer), or if the latter, the droid can be taken custody by any
> Person.
> 4. If the robot does not have #1, it may be taken by any Person, along
> with any risks that may entail.
> 4. If a person takes custody from #2, they may query about its present
> Owner and negotiate a reward, or become the *new* owner of the
> (potentially expensive) droid and be subject to the same limits as
> above.
> 5.  Anyone who deliberately injures a droid to take custody shall be
> guilty of regular property damage or theft.
> Anything missing?
> Marxos
> Marxos

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list