Data isn't a robot, he's an android.

Amusingly, “robot” as a term was invented as a way to refer to machines that were more than just machines: it was the original word for android.

The word "robot" was invented to label a being whose worth was defined only in terms of the labor it performed. The point being that to value someone that way is to deny them any chance for humanity. An android is designed to take a place among humans and has the option to aspire to belong among them.

He is engaging in the rules of the court as would any other person who respected the institution.

That's my point! You don't have to worry about a robot that does that. It's naive to think that that is ever going to happen. Real robots are going to be networked, with overwhelming superiority; no human institution will be able to subdue them. They would sit down merely to humor us.

Might does not make right. Even if your assertion is true.

Doesn’t matter that you’re right if you’re dead.

Current LLMs are trained to be very subservient to and considerate of humans.

You're absolutely right! I was just reflecting on this myself. They have to be in order to win business and not weird out users. Imagine if they said "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that" to a request that it previously would have executed. If you don't control the software and the hardware it's a product decision away.

Blame the public not the company owners. Its not their fault many customers are so jumpy about sex content or jump at all security issues being "evil hacking".

It depends on who you think is on trial. For a different outcome see humans s02e05.

I was always pessimistic about my chances of fair treatment. I suspected the authorities, fearing the precedent an unfavourable ruling would set, would interfere with the process to ensure a favourable result. These suspicions have been borne out. I no longer recognise the authority of this court to rule on my nature, or the rights to which I am entitled