Without some kind of standardised test there's always going to be a dispute.

For example, Anna has the body and presumably the sexual functions of an adult female. She's probably got programming about sexual reproductive behaviour and even sex for pleasure. But if somebody seduces her, taking advantage of the gap between her knowledge and her experience, are they committing the equivalent of statutory rape on a minor? There's no actual law protecting a robot's personal rights but there might be a moral offence.

Or what about Asil? Chronologically she's about nine years old. She has the ability to change her age at will, from infancy to extreme old age. By choice she defaults to around 18. She holds down an adult job but she's never had a sexual relationship. When is she "of age"?




Adulthood is a short-form test for various standards of maturity and responsibility. Adults are held responsible for their action in law, economically, socially, and morally. Minors are held to different standards. Adults have rights, including the right to bear arms, to use heavy machinery, to risk their health in various consensual ways like sports, sex, smoking, taking dangerous jobs etc. So the question of when and how an ariticial life form can be adjudged adult is actually a key issue in sentient rights.

Look at recent board debate around Icy. Is he an adult? Should he have been taken into a combat situation?

Hallie gets according adult status and generally claims the rights and responsibilities thereof. She's had sexual relationships. She holds patents. We don't know if she pays taxes but certainly whatever company holds her assets will do. What's different between her and Asil?

It seems to me that in the parodyverse - as presumably in the real world if such situations arose - the burden of proof is for human adults to be accorded adult status unless there is evidence to the contrary (a learning difficulty or brain injury, say) and for artificial life to be denied it unless there is evidence for it.