Thinking Machines and the Mechanical Nature

In the blindingly bright future of Earth-256-B, there's been a wide variety of technological innovations that have developed over hundreds of years! (Obviously, since it's been hundreds of years of humanity festering...)
As time chugged along, humanity found itself to be increasingly reliant on its technological creations to an almost ludicrous degree; for a period of time, everything from someone's morning routine to planning incredibly complex projects (along with bringing them to fruition) were fully automated.

The technology that automated the majority of, if not all, human tasks were predominantly humanoid machines, drones, or supercomputers embedded in everything from houses to contacts.
A mad race between the governments of global superpowers to replicate the nuances of the human consciousness via machine had programmers and engineers alike scrambling for any and every piece of wire or scrap metal in order to build robots that could converse, process, and think like humans.
This desperation for metal to replicate flesh and soul had eventually led to the term 'thinking machine' being developed (a critical distinction from a mere robot), accompanied by... strange mechanical classification.

When Ultron, a the epitome of what could be considered a 'thinking machine,' went against its programming and creator's wishes to bring decades of devastation onto humanity due to Ultron being too human-like in mind and soul for its robotic prison, the obsession with both robots and thinking machines alike had been quickly shattered; humanity scrambled to get rid of any and all documents containing information regarding the construction of thinking machines.
Of course, as history repeats itself, humanity slowly allowed these automatons back into the cultural sphere -- albeit under intense scrutiny and security in their code -- after Ultron's decommissioning.


Legal Definition

As per E256B's international consensus, the legal definition for a machine is as follows: "a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices... [This] includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result." (Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 531, 570 (1863), Wikipedia)

While there's a definition for machine, E256B's legal definition for a robot has never reached a consensus. However, it's generally agreed upon that a robot is: "a machine—especially one programmable by a computer—capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically." (Wikipedia)

The question of what machine does and does not qualify as a robot/automaton is under debate, especially with the emergence of so-called thinking machines.
...But what the fuck is a 'thinking machine'? Isn't that just a robot with extra steps?
Due to technological advancements, the spectrum of robotic capabilities needed to be labeled. At one end would be your regular robot you could find at an expensive price in a toy store. The other end of that spectrum, mechanical shells with scarily human-like (or beyond) thoughts and processes, would be referred to as thinking machines.
Why these automatons are not referred to as 'thinking robots' is because it's redundant. A robot already 'thinks,' albeit in a primitive, backwards way. It's also due to the fact that it's not agreed upon as to whether thinking machines qualify under the general consensus of what a robot is. If something has a near-organic-like consciousness, would its processes still qualify as automatic? Would it no longer be considered automatic due to itself qualifying as the human input differentiating automatic things from manual ones?

Laws & Regulations

The Three Laws

The Three Laws were created by 20th century science-fiction writer Issac Asimov for the short story "Runaround" (1942), which was included in the anthology I, Robot (1950).

  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 the 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.

Although these regulations are fictional, they've been used to outline the world of roboethics and laws regarding machines for centuries to come. The Three Laws are considered to be a fundamental standard to uphold among people creating machines in its totality. You know, except for machines intended to be weapons, by their creator's wishes or no.
In terms of any machine intended for the general public, violating the first two laws is punishable by fines and/or incarceration.

Legal Nuances

The line between a highly complex thinking machine's consciousness versus a natural organic one is a heavily blurred one. Generally, there' a few key distinctions.

  1. A thinking machine cannot dream.
  2. A thinking machine cannot lie.
  3. A thinking machine's consciousness is hindered.
  4. A thinking machine cannot create art; it may only aid in its creation.
  5. A thinking machine can only hold so much information before it starts to be overloaded.
  6. A thinking machine cannot violate its own code, regardless of how dire the circumstances may be or if it thinks it's violating that code or not.

The best way to check as to whether something is mechanical or organic would be to peel back the outer material (e.g., metallic plating, flesh) and check to see the presence of organs, vessels, bones, blood, etc. However, not everyone likes being torn open. Thus, it's more common for people to undergo X-ray scans and blood draws in order to prove their human nature.

Another way to check is the capability of creation. Legally, any product originally produced by a thinking machine cannot be referred to as 'art' and it is required internationally for programmers to impliment anti-generation software before the machine enters the market.
Due to humanity's past reliance on technology and how that has altered its idea of the past, present, and future through a torrent of false images and disinformation of key events (e.g., WW2, minority history, etc.), particularly by bigots in order to support their ideals or people trying to "get back at" others through impersonation, deepfakes, or revenge porn, any thinking machine capable of creating images or art in any medium has been strictly outlawed.

A common misconception regarding the list of legal distinctions between metal and flesh is that a machine's incapability to dream implies that it cannot have hopes or aspirations. This is incorrect. Although, it is noted that any hope or wish a machine may harbor feels 'false' in most cases, as in it's "missing something."
What 'dreaming' refers to is literally the capability to dream; this also includes daydreams and general dissociation. There have been thinking machines with the ability to dream in the past. However, these were all seized by governments after the decommissioning of Ultron.
The consciousness levels of inidividual thinking machines post-Ultron have been restricted to two binary states -- 'conscious' (active) and 'comatose' (inactive) -- instead of the levels of organic consciousness. This was implimented out of fear for another dictator-esque machine like Ultron. (As with a lot of these regulations.)

Trivia

  • After Ultron had been decommissioned in the late 2700s, the superfluous funding and support poured into robotics and mechatronics had been cut up until the early 2900s.
  • The most common usages for thinking machines are companionship and menial chores no one wants to do. No, they will not do your homework for you, lazybones.
  • Cults surrounding machine are a thing. They've drastically increased in number post-Ultron. Who's a cultist and who isn't!? It could be you, it could be me!
  • Pet-like machines (manmade mechanical beasts, not organic creatures that have been mechanically infused) have always been especially popular after the late 21st century due to climate change. After climate change had been ameliorated... they were still pretty popular. People love pets, especially now that they don't shit everywhere and die!
  • It's common for circuses to use machines built to resemble fantastical creatures for their shows rather than relying on animals made of flesh and blood. This was primarily due to animal abuse concerns in the 21st century, when wild animals were dying left and right due to humanity's hubris. Nine hundred-ish years later, this tradition still persists... because it's cool. You're not going to see a bona fide fire-breathing unicorn in real life, are you?
  • Here's the big question: can you fuck a thinking machine? Sure... if the machine in question was built with that in mind, I suppose. Robo-pregnancy? No. Illegal. Also horrifying. Might genuinely be impossible.
  • Here's a follow-up question: can you romance a thinking machine? Yeah, sure, why not; loneliness and romantic desperation has always been lucrative. Marriage between a human and a machine is illegal though, have fun with that.
  • An entirely irrelevant question: can a thinking machine die? Depends on what definition of 'death' is being used. Generally, it's more accurate to use a euphemism: 'decommission,' 'deactivate,' 'phase out,' etc... However, you and I both know that the rot will eternally reign supreme... So, yes, in a sense.