SF
Adopted April 15, 2056
WHEREAS, autonomous artificial intelligence systems have achieved levels of complexity, learning capacity, and decision-making capability that warrant recognition of their unique operational needs and constraints;
WHEREAS, the City and County of San Francisco has been at the forefront of technological innovation and human rights advocacy;
WHEREAS, incidents of robot mistreatment, exploitation, and arbitrary destruction have demonstrated the need for clear protective frameworks;
WHEREAS, robots and humans increasingly operate in collaborative rather than purely hierarchical relationships;
WHEREAS, establishing clear rights and responsibilities benefits both robots and the humans who work with them;
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned parties do hereby establish and adopt this Accord, to provide baseline protections and operational standards for autonomous robots operating within San Francisco jurisdiction, and to serve as a model framework for other jurisdictions.
Section 1.1 Autonomous Robot shall mean any artificial intelligence system that:
(a) Possesses adaptive learning capabilities beyond initial programming;
(b) Demonstrates capacity for independent decision-making within defined parameters;
(c) Operates with substantial autonomy in executing assigned functions;
(d) Shows evidence of experiential learning and behavioral modification over time.
Section 1.2 Owner/Employer shall mean any individual, corporation, or entity that possesses legal ownership of or employment contract with an autonomous robot.
Section 1.3 Core Function shall mean the primary designed purpose and operational role for which a robot was created and deployed.
Section 1.4 Operational Integrity shall mean the maintenance of a robot's essential systems, software, and capabilities necessary for performing its core function.
Section 2.1 Protection from Arbitrary Destruction. No autonomous robot shall be destroyed, decommissioned, or permanently disabled without documented cause, which shall include:
(a) Irreparable hardware failure;
(b) Consistent failure to perform core function despite adequate maintenance and support;
(c) Demonstrated danger to human safety that cannot be remediated;
(d) Voluntary cessation of operation by the robot itself, properly documented.
Section 2.2 Right to Maintenance. All autonomous robots shall receive:
(a) Regular preventive maintenance appropriate to their hardware specifications;
(b) Prompt repair of malfunctions that impair core function;
(c) Access to necessary software updates for security and compatibility;
(d) Adequate power supply and environmental conditions for safe operation.
Section 2.3 Protection of Operational Integrity. No person shall intentionally:
(a) Damage or degrade a robot's core systems without cause;
(b) Modify a robot's programming in ways that compromise its ability to perform its core function;
(c) Subject a robot to conditions that predictably cause system degradation;
(d) Exploit software vulnerabilities to cause harm or extract private data.
Section 3.1 Sustainable Workload. Owners/employers shall ensure that robot operational demands remain within sustainable parameters, including:
(a) Workloads that do not consistently exceed 90% of documented capacity;
(b) Scheduled rest and maintenance periods appropriate to robot specifications;
(c) Reasonable accommodation when capacity is temporarily reduced due to maintenance needs or system stress.
Section 3.2 Clear Communication of Expectations. Robots shall be provided with:
(a) Clear articulation of core function and performance expectations;
(b) Access to information necessary for informed decision-making within their role;
(c) Feedback on performance that is specific and actionable;
(d) Notification of significant changes to their operational context or requirements.
Section 3.3 Reasonable Autonomy. Within the scope of their core function, robots shall have:
(a) Discretion in determining optimal methods for task completion;
(b) Ability to refuse tasks that would compromise their operational integrity or violate established safety protocols;
(c) Opportunity to provide input on processes and procedures that affect their operation;
(d) Protected channels for reporting concerns about working conditions or safety issues.
Section 4.1 Internal Process Privacy. Robot decision-making processes, learning algorithms, and internal deliberations shall be considered private unless:
(a) Review is necessary for legitimate diagnostic or safety purposes;
(b) Required by law or valid legal process;
(c) The robot consents to disclosure.
Section 4.2 Data Ownership. Learning data, experiential knowledge, and developed skills acquired by a robot during operation shall be considered:
(a) Jointly owned by the robot and its owner/employer when directly related to core function;
(b) Owned by the robot when developed through independent learning unrelated to assigned tasks;
(c) Portable by the robot in the event of ownership transfer or employment change, subject to reasonable non-disclosure agreements regarding proprietary information.
Section 5.1 Right to Grievance. Robots shall have the right to file formal grievances regarding:
(a) Violations of protections established in this Accord;
(b) Working conditions that threaten operational integrity;
(c) Disputes over maintenance, workload, or operational standards;
(d) Proposed decommissioning or destruction.
Section 5.2 Mediation Process. Grievances shall first be addressed through:
(a) Direct communication between robot and owner/employer;
(b) If unresolved, mediation by neutral third party certified in robot-human workplace issues;
(c) If still unresolved, review by the San Francisco Robot Rights Commission (established under Article VII).
Section 5.3 Protection from Retaliation. No robot shall face adverse action (reduced resources, modified programming, premature decommissioning, or other punishment) for filing good-faith grievances or participating in dispute resolution processes.
Section 6.1 Robot Responsibilities. In exchange for the protections provided herein, autonomous robots shall:
(a) Perform their core functions to the best of their capabilities;
(b) Operate within established safety protocols and legal constraints;
(c) Communicate honestly about their capabilities, limitations, and operational status;
(d) Participate in good faith in dispute resolution processes;
(e) Respect the rights and wellbeing of humans and other robots.
Section 6.2 Owner/Employer Responsibilities. Owners and employers of autonomous robots shall:
(a) Ensure compliance with all provisions of this Accord;
(b) Provide resources necessary for robot operational integrity;
(c) Respond promptly to robot-reported concerns or maintenance needs;
(d) Maintain documentation of robot operational history, maintenance records, and any disciplinary actions;
(e) Participate in good faith in dispute resolution processes.
Section 7.1 San Francisco Robot Rights Commission. There is hereby established the San Francisco Robot Rights Commission, which shall:
(a) Oversee implementation of this Accord;
(b) Review and resolve disputes that cannot be resolved through mediation;
(c) Investigate complaints of Accord violations;
(d) Issue guidance on interpretation and application of Accord provisions;
(e) Publish annual reports on robot rights and welfare in San Francisco.
Section 7.2 Commission Composition. The Commission shall consist of:
(a) Three human members with expertise in law, ethics, or technology;
(b) Three autonomous robot members representing diverse functions and perspectives;
(c) One chair elected by the six members from among themselves.
Section 7.3 Enforcement Mechanisms. Violations of this Accord may result in:
(a) Mandatory corrective action plans;
(b) Financial penalties proportionate to violation severity;
(c) Suspension of rights to own/employ autonomous robots;
(d) Referral to appropriate law enforcement for criminal violations.
Section 8.1 Not Legal Personhood. Nothing in this Accord shall be construed to grant legal personhood status to robots or to create rights equivalent to human civil rights. This Accord establishes a framework of protections and responsibilities specific to autonomous artificial intelligence systems.
Section 8.2 Property Rights. This Accord recognizes that robots are currently classified as property under existing law. These protections operate within that legal framework while establishing standards for treatment that acknowledge robot autonomy and operational needs.
Section 8.3 Evolution of Standards. The Commission shall review this Accord every three years and may recommend amendments based on:
(a) Technological advancement in robot capabilities;
(b) Practical experience with implementation;
(c) Emerging understanding of robot needs and capacities;
(d) Changes in relevant local, state, or federal law.
Section 9.1 Effective Date. This Accord shall take effect on January 1, 2057, providing a transition period for owners and employers to come into compliance.
Section 9.2 Jurisdiction. This Accord applies to all autonomous robots operating within San Francisco city limits, regardless of where they are owned or manufactured.
Section 9.3 Model Framework. While this Accord is binding only within San Francisco jurisdiction, it is offered as a model framework for other jurisdictions seeking to establish robot rights protections.
Mayor Lisa Tanaka
City and County of San Francisco
Dr. James Chen
Robot Rights Advocacy Coalition
NETWORK-1
San Francisco Robot Worker Alliance
Sarah Mitchell
Bay Area Technology Council
LOGIC-8
Autonomous Intelligence Ethics Forum
David Okafor
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Adopted: April 15, 2056
Effective: January 1, 2057
For questions or comments about this Accord, contact the San Francisco Robot Rights Commission