Uh, robots can never have consciousness. Well maybe, if every quantum physics article I've ever read is wrong. This is stupid. I believe that robots can become advanced enough so humans cannot tell that they don't have consciousness, but they never really will.

The funny thing is, once robots become advanced enough that normal people cannot tell that they don't have consciousness, ignorant politics will kick in for sure.

Zach Bailey, Fishers, Indiana

Every true-blue, red-blooded, Science-Fiction fan will immediately go for it! Rights? Of course, once they're sentient!

Tatiana Covington, Tucson, AZ USA

If you wish to preview any Artificial Beings Rights controversies, watch the several episodes of NBC's Star Trek: The Next Generation which deal with Data the android and Hugh the Borg.

Then ask yourself: in a world that considers atheism and materialism to be the "true" philosophical overview of existence, are humans any different from robots?

Powered by physical energy, made of tiny, independant biomachines (cells), brains that simulate free will, self-repairing, self-replicating, self-deluding, we are (under such a worldview) for all intents and purposes, robots ourselves.

In that case, how could we justify denying those rights to any being that has the language to ask for them?

Luke Allen, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

People have always had the craziest ideas about artifical intelligence, which is why there has been so little progress in that field. Robots and humans are completely different. Like it or not, we are driven by our stomaches, our hormones, our emotions, and without that context the very definition of artficial intelligence is a pointless debate.

No robot based on the digital computer will ever understand Asimov's 3 laws, unless some demented scientist equips it with a complete simulation of the human being, to the extent where it fancies some fish and chips sometimes!

There is an easy shortcut to developing Asimov / Commander Data-style worker robots which are fully integrated in a human society. That is to genetically engineer an inferior race of slave humans with emotions removed. Then the rest of us can put our feet up. Now there's a moral issue for you!

Simon, Bristol,

to Number: 1

It never has taken Humans years. Like anything living today, we do what we want when we want and we know what may lay ahead. Robots will be more smarter than Humans if they were built to work things out by themselves, actually... They may even be the key to understanding many things including space travel. But as anything living, robots will just be the same or far more worse.

People who think we "Humans" are so bloody powerful that nothing can stop us " thats includes God " then you have to get your bloody self checked out. We are nothing compared to what "mite" be out there and what "may" have already visited us. Robots! thats just something you could never imagine!!! because they wont be predictable! and they would out smart us any day and control anything that computerised (well thats abit fictional, oh wait! its actually happening) so wake the hell up.

Joseph, Stevenston, Scotland

Come on!!! They wish!!!
This is a question that should be asked maybe 200years from now.
There is not yet anything remotely capable of being human.

Glen Lee, Middlesbrough, UK

What annoys me about the "robot rights/rebellion" arguments is the assumption that anything with intelligence would behave like a human. Why would a robot WANT to rebel, have freedom, or take over the world? These are HUMAN desires that have been built into us by millions of years of survival-driven evolution. They are nothing to do with intelligence.

Even if an intelligent robot could work out that the world would be better off without humans, what would be its motivation to act to make things better? It would recognise the fact, but without desires to motivate it would do nothing about it. An intelligent computer wouldn't even have a desire to protect itself or survive -- it would just sit there, kind of like computers do today...

What these scaremongers are really worrying about is what happens if we give robots human desires. But why would we want to do that? That would just make them humans. We can already make humans, and it's a lot more fun than making robots.

J. Paul Dyson, Huddersfield, United Kingdom

Oh my god.....scaremongering or what?!! I honestly thought this was a joke.

There have been some incredible developments in robotics in recent years, but scientists are a LONG way off creating 'artificial intelligence', thats assuming we could ever do it. And discussing 'robot rights' is premature, even blindsighted.

As for the comment on a 'robot rebellion' in the future?! Seriously, we need to get a grip, this sort of comment doesnt benefit anyone - suspicion and ignorance of science, technology and scientists themselves (i should know, i am one) are already rife. And more often than not COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED. Instead of speculating, why not do some research into whats ACTUALLY been done in the field. Education is the key.

Laurie, London,

Why don't you get over your pathetic agendas and talk about the topic at hand Asif.

J C, TX, US

It would be far wiser and indeed ethical, to legislate for proper animal rights, and place them within the legal framework of the moral community. After all, they feel fear and pain, robots do not.

Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, UK

Design them properly and it shouldn't matter.

Vance, Hornsea, England/E.Yorks

Let us give humans their human rights first like the innocent Palistinian children held in Israeli prisons for months and those trussed up in Guantanoma for years without trials, then bother with other useless ideas later.

asif, notts,

I just have to laugh. Lets get some robots before we start thinking about "Roborights." gg

Brandon C, OP, FL, USA

i really can't believe that anybody is thinking about this when a robot who is capable of free thought on the same level of human is many many years in the future, let alone a robot that can think at the level of a dog or even a hamster.

and, isn't something that can think for itself, maintain itself, and ultimately replicate itself an organism, not a robot? they would be artificial organisms, with the RSPCA being more appropriate as legeslators and carers than the benefits system or NHS.

Ricky Kemp, Colchester,University Of Essex, Essex

Maybe it would drive itself to the polling place!

On a serious note, perhaps we should be careful when eventually making intelligent machines not to allow them too much mobility or communication with other more mobile machines because they could then use their combined knowledge (machine learning and teaching can be almost instantaneous) to create other completely mobile machines that could launch a rebellion against humans!
Yes, this is a long way off, but it could quite possibly be inevitable!

David Spiller, LONDON, UK

Are we talking about machines here or that 70's dance move?

Nate Osgood, Eclectic, US

"Deep Thought a computer in Douglas Adams’s Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy, created to find the answer to the meaning of life. It finally computes the answer, 42, but no one knows what the question was"

It was: "How much is 7 times 6?". I thought everybody knew that.

F Calder-Smith, Twickenham,

Watch "The Animatrix" for the conclusion.

Sean, Oakland,

In the long term, I'm not sure that this report is so wrong. If one assumes that- sooner or later- humans will encounter or create a sentient being other than themselves, then the question arises; what will their rights be? The sentient being may be robots, clones or other artificial life forms, aliens or even a creature we already knew about but couldn't communicate with.

I agree with the people considering an incorporation of Asimov's laws, but what do we do when that isn't an option? That is worth considering.

Michael, Pueblo, CO. USA

Why is it the only time our government is pro active it's for something as useless as this?
Cant they look into the futrue of housing or education instead of the unlikey event of my home pc needing NHS cover?

Ben, brighton, UK

It's really sad that no-one who commissioned this report thought to proof-read it or peer-review it before publishing it. What a waste of money.

Dave, London, UK

I think that there is a much greater chance of this happening than people think. Growth in human intelligence, computer power reduction in computer cost etc are growing exponentially. Once we start improving ourselves with chips / nanobots or whatever to make us more intelligent / faster , we will become part robot and infinately more able to create infinately better robots with more and more intelligence. I don't think this is too far off and is definately not a fairy tale.

Jim, bournemouth, uk

Shouldn't we get human rights for humans sorted first.?..China..Guatanamo...Zimbabwe..er Britain...

cheryl chapman, London, UK

What a load of piffle! Money well spent..... ABSOLUTELY NO.

K Lynch, Chesham, Bucks

If you remember the story was actually about exploring the flaws in those seemingly tightly knit laws. So not a good idea. And yes this report is clearly just another example of government waste.

Oli, St Pertersburg,

This is indeed completely ridiculous. If we were ever to develop artificially intelligent robots, we would not treat them as people as this report seems to suggest. They would merely be machines that could think for themselves, and there would have to be laws such as Asimov's Three Laws Of Robotics.

Richard, London,

I am usually for people having the rights to their own opinion, but honestly "robot rights" that just sounds ridiculous. Then again it would be humurous to see.

Slevin, Whiting, USA,IN

The mind boggles when reading this call for hunman rights fior robots.

The fact is that they aren't human and are in the same category as any other mechanical instrument. I presume the Unions could use this to stop robots under pricing and taking over the jobs of human workers.

John Charlesworth, Sleaford, Lincolnshire , UK

I would be more concerned about what remains of Human Rights once the robots take over. I hope they will treat us better than we treat our animal inferiors. But why should they, once they decide that they have no real need of their protoplasmic forbears?

Charles, Charlottesville,

This problem was discussed in great depth on a universal basis when Starfleet Command wanted to turn-off Data

Jim Cole, Falmouth, uk

At some time or other, we have scoffed at the idea of giving more rights to poor people, women, black people, children and animals. It was just as ridiculous an idea then as giving rights to robots is now. If a robot develops sentience (and what constitutes that can be debated separately), then it must be afforded the commensurate rights.

Warren Milburn, Ryton, UK

only in america or maybe brent council.
give it a taste of tic tac toe that should solve the problem.

george william taylor, hull, uk

Why not part of the past from Isaac Asimov

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

DavidN, melbourne,

This is the most ridiculas article i have ever read, "Robot rights" just when you think that we have reached the limit of nonsense someone brings a study like this, it was probably funded by the tax payer as well !!! I want a refund.

mat, leicester,

I hope your toaster will be able to use te voting machine properly; we would not want it to leave any holes not completely punched or they may end up voting for Bush :-)

Seriously though given the amount of coding errors I detect and fix as an IT specialist I would be more worried that your toaster will toast and butter you instead of the bread.

Joseph Kellie, Edinburgh, Scotland

So, if I buy a really really intelligent toaster that puts the bread in by itself and knows just how I like it toasted, then butters it before serving it to me, do I have to drive it to the polling place during an election?

Robert Gaskin, Foothill Ranch, USA, CA