Value Alignment, Fair Play, and the Rights of Service Robots
This academic paper examines the concept of value alignment in artificial intelligence through the lens of Alan Turing's early call for fair play for machines. The author argues that Turing's imitation game can be reinterpreted as a test for minimal value alignment rather than a benchmark for intelligence or moral agency. Finally, the paper applies this fair play framework to argue that extending rights to service robots operating in public spaces encourages an alignment of human and machine interests.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
AI researchers, ethicists, and legal scholars should read this to understand alternative philosophical foundations for value alignment and robot rights.
What the document contains
The paper covers the relationship between contemporary value alignment research in AI and Alan Turing's historical writings on machine intelligence and fair play. It addresses how standards of evaluation are applied to machines and explores a social-role analysis of agency law to justify rights for service robots.
The text does not provide binding legal regulations, formal policy frameworks, or specific enforcement mechanisms for robot rights.
- Alan Turing's principle of fair play for machines offers an overlooked historical contribution to the modern value alignment literature.
- The imitation game can be reinterpreted as the Fair Play Turing Test, which evaluates whether a machine meets the same conversational standards used for humans.
- Value alignment focuses on whether AI conforms to human values and norms, distinguishing it from the search for genuine moral or intelligent agency.
- Extending legal protections and rights to service robots operating in public spaces helps align interests between humans and machines without requiring full personhood.
· Abstract · Value Alignment and Turing’s Test · Fair Play for Machines · The Rights of Service Robots · Conclusions
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
0/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23