1. Introduction

Since the inception and coming into force of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (UDHR),^{1 37}together with a wide range of international human rights instruments over the past few decades, contemporary democratic societies have grappled with a plethora of human rights issues in a varied international context. A cursory glance at major international dailies is proof positive of how modern societies have evolved. With this evolution, the necessity to continually define the boundaries of human rights mechanisms is also exemplified. Exciting developments in burgeoning research fields in the last decade, for example, in biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, neuroscience, the human genome, and revolutionary medical and scientific achievements, have simultaneously awed and caused concern. But in the last few years, two interesting characters in artificial intelligence (AI) have particularly captured the imagination of the creative effusion in human rights discourse: Harmony,^{2 24}and Sophia,^{3 32}both social humanoid robots.⁴

In the constantly developing field of AI, in addition to the social discourses on benefits of AI to modern communities, much has also been raised about the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSIs) of these emerging technologies. Of particular concern is how they impact human lives, and whether, and how, legal systems should or can respond to these technological advancements to curb misuse. From considerations of AI as a legitimate subject of the law,^{5 3}to autonomous AI systems,⁶to regulatory challenges in the robotics age,⁷there is much food for thought when the convergence between humankind and technologies becomes a reality. Because of this intersection, the appropriately formulated legal responses, along with human rights discourse, must navigate the boundaries of contemporary thinking in making sense of an effective and symbiotic means of achieving the best possible benefits to society as a whole. Harmony and Sophia clearly represent provocative endeavors over the last two years; challenging our notions of very specific aspects of the human rights discourse.

Harmony and Sophia are social, humanoid robots possessing almost human-like characteristics; they are gleaming trophies of AI applications, complicated algorithms based on block-chain, the products of inventors Matt McMullen and David Hanson, respectively. Where Harmony had first been touted as the world's first commercially available sex-bot⁸and customizable companion, Sophia's creation is focused on the magnitude of technological advancements, global marketing, and possibilities afforded by AI vis-a-vis a "decentralized open market in which any AI developer can install his own software".⁹The creation of Harmony and Sophia has attracted international attention, both for different reasons; but what has been illuminated through the cracks of scientific engineering is a much more sinister, underlying representation that challenges the concept of 'personhood' in human rights.

In this paper, Part II begins by providing a brief background to the creation of Harmony and Sophia. Their creation hints at possibilities of future human rights erosion generally, and I make this claim with specific targeting on the social purposes for which they were created. More particularly, I highlight the juxtaposition of the roles they represent, and how the enlargement of AI systems connects to the broad scope of the human rights corpus. I also briefly highlight selected recent European responses to AI systems- which is the European Parliament's study on European Civil Law Rules in Robotics, requested by the Committee on Legal Affairs and supervised by the Policy Department for "Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs",¹⁰(the European Parliament Study) and the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs Report to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics¹¹(the European Parliament Report).

In Part III, I identify that the main problem regarding Harmony and Sophia is the manner in which AI has been commoditized. I argue that the intended purposes of both Harmony and Sophia is contributively negligent to the erosion of human rights and its ability to skillfully manipulate grey areas of non-governance. In particular, I focus on two key issues. Firstly, I zero in on the notion of legal personhood, and question the wisdom of its extension to non-humans (in this case, AI humanoids) as valid, legal persons. Secondly, I focus on the gendered female dimensions of these socialized AI systems. AI personalities like Harmony and Sophia, I argue, may be interpreted as lewd, continuing objectification of the female form and personality, and normalization of the patriarchal culture of female subservience and violence. These are serious considerations that ironically hinder the development of women's rights discourse whilst emancipating the reach of scientific technologies.

Finally, in Part IV, I try to reconcile the operability of AI systems, such as Harmony and Sophia, within the context of the European Parliament Study and the European Parliament Report, and question if social humanoid robots fit within these proposed frameworks.

2. Background: The Creation of 'Intelligent' Humanoids

It would not be possible to envisage the foundational beginnings of AI without first tracing the historical inventions of the mathematical genius, Alan Turing. Credited as the father of the computer age, having invented not only the Universal Turing Machine (which is now being touted to be the very first computer), Turing's work¹²in Bletchley Park¹³was seen as a significant contribution during World War II. Historical accounts and the continued records of Turing's work indicates that he paved the path for computing intelligence and machinery in our digital age. His most significant body of work titled Computing Machinery and Intelligence¹⁴in 1950 introduces the famous 'imitation game',¹⁵or the Turing Test, where he introduces a mathematical "criterion for thinking".¹⁶His further work in Can Digital Computers Think¹⁷in 1951 is an early indicator of the future digital age, when computing intelligence, machine learning and the growth of technologies would become a consequential part of human lives. Turing proclaimed that "it is not altogether unreasonable to describe digital computers as brains."¹⁸This statement, in its complex simplicity, is congruent to modern inventions in AI, and challenges our notions of human intelligence and the capacities of programmed machines.

In their work regarding AI as the subjects of law, Cěrka et al provided a simple definition of AI, as "artificially developed intelligence related to rapidly developing technologies, which enable computers to operate intelligently, i.e. in a human like manner."¹⁹It is likely that in our daily lives, AI systems and platforms have been seamlessly integrated into our contemporary being and living. Once reflected rationale is permitted, we may duly observe how these systems of AI have been voluntarily incorporated into communications, entertainment, the work space and environment, and many other facets of societal interactions. It appears that we do not object to this integration, insofar as the benefits that may be reaped from AI in these instances, outweigh the potential fallacies described by the Neo-Luddites movement,^{20 20 11}for example. We are, however, forced to take notice, when our Promethean hubris takes the shape of commoditized AI systems that challenge existing notions of our personhood, our humanized and normative values, and seeks to rationalize the external negativities that human beings may be capable of. I therefore argue that Harmony and Sophia are AI systems that do so.

Harmony was created on the basis of sexual companionship; and although sex robots have been in existence over the past decade, none have been successfully and commercially available for sale to the general public. Since 2014, Harmony's AI system has undergone numerous changes, and has resulted in what is now known as the Harmony AI. Harmony AI is the heart of the RealDoll, made by Abyss Creations, the world's first commercially available, customizable sex robot. Harmony's creator, Matt McMullen and his company, Realbotix, have explained the potential of such an invention to the "lonely, eccentric or curious,"^{21 25}and corrects the misconception that such robots are meant to substitute women. Instead, McMullen states that this is "an alternative form of relationship, nothing more."²²Journalist Christopher Trout, on his visit to the Harmony factory, described the experience as a venture into the Uncanny Valley,^{23 19}which is a phenomenon characterized by people's simultaneous feelings of empathy and revulsion to robots that seem to appear human-like. In clear contrast to its robot predecessors, which were intended to be robot assistants and to ease processes of automation, Harmony's main purpose for 'existence' is hinged on companionship, sex, and according to McMullen, "virtual love."²⁴

Sophia was created by David Hanson and Hanson Robotics- initially as an experiment responding to the Uncanny Valley phenomenon. In Hanson's paper entitled Upending the Uncanny Valley,^{25 13}he aspired "to bring robotic systems up to the level of great art, while using the technology as a mirror for examining human nature in social AI development and cognitive science experiments."²⁶Thus far, as a social robot, Sophia appears to fulfill the parameters of AI platforms, and open up possibilities of a social robot being utilized for various market applications. The idea behind Sophia's creation is that potential interested AI developers would be able to utilize the robot for various applications, such as a marketing tool, personal assistant, social media strategist, and the like, all of which may require interactions with human beings. In branching out these outlets, Sophia is intended to mimic human behavior, reactions and empathy and respond accordingly to human counter-parts. Although certain factions have responded with mixed reactions, it cannot be denied that as a humanoid robot, Sophia has garnered international fame; from being appointed at the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) as the first, non-human innovation champion,^{27 36}to being granted Saudi Arabia citizenship in the Middle East.^{28 40}

The seemingly juxtaposed roles of Harmony and Sophia are both ironic and disturbing. This stems, not from the fact that they appear to be almost-human-like beings deserving of protection,²⁹and are social in nature,^{30 5}but much more so from what they could be interpreted to represent. In positioning the offering of Harmony as a sex-bot and a fully customizable sexual companion, in accordance to a particular client's preference, Harmony represents a vision that equates sex to female personality. A client's ability to customize Harmony in accordance with what is desired³¹unduly sends forward a message of female inferiority and malleability. On the other hand, Sophia's current functioning as a formidable marketing tool, an AI platform that may be programmable to market any kind of product, represents an exploitative facet of labor forces that, if being thrust upon human persons, would be in contravention of labor laws. Since being granted Saudi Arabian citizenship, Sophia has also been utilized to champion women's rights in the country,^{32 9}but the irony of this manoeuver is not lost on the less befuddled.^{33 15}In similar ways, Harmony and Sophia represent the continued capitalistic mindset of the free market, disguised under the altruistic notions of progressing human development, and supplying a societal demand that apparently needs to be met. Beyond this interpretation, the underlying functions manifested by Harmony and Sophia offer an acceptable face of legitimacy to what may have been non-legitimate (from a human rights perspective), simply by virtue of their being humanoid robots.

It is not far-fetched to see how the implications of AI systems like Harmony and Sophia impact the broad corpus of human rights values-by determining how these human rights values may be reconciled with the 'exploitation' of humanoid social robots as locums in imago with human persons. The discourse on ethical practices in robotics and AI, as well as the involvement of multiple international non-governmental organizations in considering the global impact of AI, has been necessary, in light of issues such as privacy, accountability and responsibility, and the labor market and employment.^{34 28}These are practical issues that have dominated the sphere in the age of the Internet of Things, Big Data, crypto-currency and block-chain financing, and other current ELSIs that are raised by the permeation of AI systems in extant living. Not enough concern is given to how 'proper' it is that social humanoid robots like Harmony and Sophia, may have the effect of normalizing or legitimizing non-acceptable behaviors that would not be permitted under democratic laws.

In the meantime, the European Union (EU) has responded to the permeation of social AI systems. The European Parliament Study makes recommendations for composing a legislative instrument on "legal questions related to the development of robotics and artificial intelligence."³⁵The study also outlined the key ethical questions that are associated with future proliferation of autonomous robots,³⁶issues relating to liability,³⁷and the key ethical principles that must be developed vis-à-vis a suggested draft Charter on Robotics.³⁸In a more comprehensive 2017 report, the European Parliament Report,³⁹Rapporteur Mady Delvaux made the case for the need to "set common European principles and a common legal framework before every member state has implemented its own and different law. Standardization is also in the interest of the market...".^{40 26}In 2018, new developments within the EU saw a Declaration of Cooperation on Artificial Intelligence^{41 1}being signed by 25 member states, and demonstrated that a European action plan regarding AI is necessary, culminating in a proposal to "foster the development and use of AI in Europe."^{42 8}These represent a step forward in recognizing the implications of AI, and although the coordinated European plan is newly limited in its scope, it is hoped that its future implementation will also include, amongst other things, an inclusive stakeholder engagement process (including legislators, policy makers, scientists, researchers, industry representatives and the general public) that takes into account the ELSIs of AI systems, as well as the position of social humanoid robots.

3. Commoditizing AI and its Impact on Human Rights

4. Conclusion

With reference to the European Parliament Study, the European Parliament Report, I advance the statement that much more needs to be evaluated, particularly how social AI systems should be governed. In the European Parliament Study, the key findings appear to address practical issues. However, they are also too broad, and focus on the mainly "robo-ethical principles for protecting humanity from robots."⁶⁸Besides the protection of humanity from robots, which I believe sends an erroneous message that robots will take over the world, what should be emphasized is the ethical use of AI and robotics by human persons.

In the European Parliament Report, Mady Delvaux persuasively argues for a common legal framework for AI in the European sphere. The report itself is very comprehensive, and cognizant of the manifestations of AI in contemporary settings. However, there are significant questions raised (which have not been specifically addressed in the report). One of this is Recommendation AC,⁶⁹which states as follows:

whereas, ultimately, the autonomy of robots raises the question of their nature in the light of the existing legal categories or whether a new category should be created, with its own specific features and implications.

What is likely to be most disconcerting would involve the issue of rights in the event robots are considered separate legal entities, equivalent to a human person possessing rights and liabilities in a system of governance. One of the main concerns that may emerge in the polarizing debates of determining AI legal personality would include, first and foremost, a uniform and common EU-wide definition of autonomous robots or AI systems.⁷⁰This would be in addition to concerns about the notion of legal personhood that would possibly be enlarged to incorporate AI legal personalities. Questions regarding human nature and human dignity, the cornerstone of human rights discourse, are also likely to be reinvigorated. Additionally, we should also question if the purposes for which these social humanoid robots are used, should be governed. If this is the case, then there is a need to tread carefully as this encroaches upon the realm of privacy and individual liberties. Policing the purposes and uses of social humanoid robots may be desirable, but it runs the risk of opening policing into other areas with purposes that accompany the daily living of human beings, whether altruistic or not. This is reminiscent of a throwback to darker days, for example, when autocratic governments police leisure activities or reading materials.

It has already been proclaimed that humankind has now entered the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and in a similar way that the first three Industrial Revolutions have transformed societies, so too will our current digitalized world. It is never too early to begin analyzing and questioning how political and institutional structures, businesses and economies, the labour market and supply chain, and legal systems and human rights can play a positive role in developing ethics and human values in responsible robotics use.