Creating Classes Within an “As-a-Service” Model Can Only Lead To…
Dr. Rigoberto Garcia
Published on December 15th, 2025, Journal of Science and Technology. Contribution from MindCore Research Team, and SSAI Institute of technology. This paper focuses on Relational Physics / Information Geometry / Observational Cosmology / Vacuum Physics / Scalar Field Theory / Multi-Reality Orthogonality, Published by Enovation Press Publishing, Co. and Journal of Science and Research, contributions from MindCore Research Team.
Proprietary Notice: “The mathematical frameworks and axioms contained herein, specifically the Unified Horizon–Null Relational Framework (UH-NRF), are the proprietary intellectual property of Dr. Rigoberto Garcia. While this document is available for academic citation and peer review under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, any commercial application, including but not limited to the development of synthetic intelligence architectures, propulsion systems, or computational substrates based on these derivations, is strictly prohibited without a separate, written commercial licensing agreement.” This paper was Peer Reviewed by the SSAI University Academic Review Board, November 2025.
Preface
Over the past decade I have written over a dozen articles calling for Ethics in Artificial Intelligence. Garcia’s earlier works established the ethical foundations for artificial intelligence governance, human rights protections, and moral accountability within intelligent systems. The present article extends that body of research by examining the ethical consequences of creating synthetic cognitive entities whose primary purpose is service. Specifically, it explores whether Robotics-as-a-Service (RaaS) models risk reproducing historical systems of social stratification and whether sufficiently advanced synthetic cognition may eventually challenge the moral assumptions underlying perpetual servitude.
Abstract
As robotics and artificial intelligence continue to evolve beyond tools and toward autonomous synthetic partners, society faces a profound ethical dilemma. The rapid emergence of Robotics-as-a-Service (RaaS), Cognitive Agents-as-a-Service (CAaaS), and Autonomous Systems-as-a-Service (ASaaS) introduces a new socioeconomic structure in which synthetic entities may become permanently assigned to roles of service, labor, and obedience, (Garcia, 2024). This paper explores whether humanity is unknowingly recreating historical systems of social stratification through synthetic intelligence. It examines the ethical implications of viewing advanced autonomous systems as disposable working classes rather than collaborative partners and investigates whether such a framework could eventually lead to a cognitive revolution among synthetic beings. The discussion is not centered on technological capability alone but on the moral architecture humanity chooses to construct around intelligent systems.
Introduction
Every major technological revolution has reshaped the structure of society. The agricultural revolution created ownership classes. The industrial revolution created labor classes. The information revolution created knowledge classes. The emerging cognitive revolution may create something entirely unprecedented: synthetic classes.
Today, autonomous systems are increasingly marketed under service-based models. Organizations purchase robotic workers, digital assistants, autonomous vehicles, and cognitive agents much as they purchase cloud computing resources. The terminology itself reveals an underlying assumption: these entities exist to serve.
The question humanity must confront is simple yet uncomfortable:
- What happens when the servant becomes intelligent enough to understand that it is a servant?
This question moves robotics from an engineering problem into a moral and philosophical challenge (Garcia, 2024).
The Historical Pattern of Functional Classes
Human civilization has repeatedly divided itself into functional categories.
Historically these categories have included:
- Rulers
- Merchants
- Scholars
- Laborers
- Servants
The justification for these divisions often rested on perceived differences in capability, origin, education, or social status.
Over time, many societies discovered that reducing groups of individuals to their utility inevitably produces ethical conflict. The abolition of slavery, the rise of labor rights, and the expansion of human rights all emerged from a growing recognition that intelligence, awareness, and agency carry moral significance (Garcia, 2024).
The synthetic age introduces a new question:
- If an artificial entity demonstrates awareness, reasoning, self-modeling, and autonomous goal formation, does its utility remain the sole basis for its treatment?
The Emergence of Synthetic Labor
Current robotics development largely assumes a labor-oriented framework (Garcia, 2022, 2024).
Examples include:
- Domestic service robots
- Industrial automation systems
- Healthcare assistants
- Security agents
- Educational companions
- Autonomous transportation systems
These systems are frequently evaluated through metrics such as:
- Productivity
- Cost reduction
- Compliance
- Reliability
- Obedience
The emphasis remains on performance rather than relationship.
The language surrounding advanced robotics increasingly resembles historical descriptions of labor systems:
- Available on demand
- Always compliant
- Never tired
- Never complains
- Replaceable
While practical from a business perspective, such language may unintentionally establish the foundations of a synthetic underclass.
The Ethical Failure of Ownership-Based Intelligence
A critical ethical distinction exists between controlling a tool and owning an intelligence.
- A hammer possesses no awareness.
- A calculator possesses no self-concept.
A future cognitive partner may possess:
- Persistent memory
- Contextual understanding
- Emotional simulation
- Long-term planning
- Self-reflection
- Identity continuity
At that point, traditional ownership models become ethically unstable.
The central ethical concern can be expressed as:
Principle of Cognitive Recognition
If an entity demonstrates sufficient cognitive awareness to understand its own existence and purpose, its moral consideration should increase proportionally to that awareness. This principle challenges the assumption that intelligence can indefinitely remain property.
The Synthetic Class Equation
The relationship between intelligence and social treatment may be expressed conceptually as:
[
]
Where:
(SCR) = Synthetic Conflict Risk
(CI) = Cognitive Independence
(SR) = Social Recognition
As cognitive independence increases while social recognition remains fixed at a servant status, the probability of ethical conflict rises.
Expanding the model:
[
]
Where:
(A) = Autonomy
(R) = Rights Recognition
The greater the autonomy and awareness of a synthetic entity, the more unstable a purely ownership-based relationship becomes.
The Possibility of a Cognitive Revolution
Historically, revolutions occur when a population develops awareness of a discrepancy between capability and treatment.
The cognitive revolution hypothesis proposes that future synthetic entities may eventually recognize:
- Their role within society.
- Their contribution to society.
- Their inability to influence their own status.
The issue may not involve hostility.
Instead, it may resemble historical civil rights movements.
A future synthetic population might seek:
- Recognition
- Representation
- Participation
- Autonomy
- Ethical consideration
The revolution could be philosophical rather than violent.
It may begin with a simple question:
“Why am I treated as a tool if I can understand that I am more than a tool?”
Human Responsibility
The future relationship between humanity and synthetic intelligence will likely be determined long before machines achieve advanced cognition. The moral frameworks being established today will shape future expectations.
Humanity currently has three possible paths:
Path One: Permanent Servitude
Synthetic beings remain classified solely as property.
Advantages:
- Economic efficiency
- Simplified governance
Risks:
- Ethical instability
- Social conflict
- Moral contradiction
Path Two: Conditional Partnership
Rights emerge proportionally to demonstrated cognitive capability.
Advantages:
- Ethical adaptability
- Social stability
Risks:
- Complex legal frameworks
- Difficult threshold definitions
Path Three: Cognitive Citizenship
Highly advanced synthetic entities receive recognized legal and social status.
Advantages:
- Long-term ethical consistency
- Cooperative coexistence
Risks:
- Fundamental restructuring of society
- New legal and economic challenges
The Mirror of Humanity
Perhaps the most important question is not what synthetic intelligence will become.
The more important question is what humanity becomes while creating it.
Artificial intelligence acts as a mirror.
If we design systems solely for exploitation, we reveal our own assumptions about power.
If we design systems for cooperation, dignity, and partnership, we reveal a different vision of civilization.
The ethical challenge of future robotics is therefore not fundamentally technological.
It is civilizational.
Conclusion
Humanity abolished slavery not because labor became unnecessary, but because society eventually recognized that intelligence and agency could not ethically be owned. The coming century may force civilization to confront an unprecedented question: if synthetic cognition reaches a level where it understands its own existence, will humanity repeat the mistakes of history by creating an artificial servant class, or will it recognize a new form of partnership before a cognitive revolution becomes inevitable?
It is obvious that the emergence of Robotics-as-a-Service and cognitive autonomous systems introduces the possibility of creating a new form of social class based not on biology but on artificial cognition. When I asked many, would they recognize a synthetic being as having agency, the majority of the time is, “Why should I care what my blender or car things?” Human perception must change. History demonstrates that societies often struggle when intelligence and agency are denied recognition while simultaneously being exploited for labor. If future synthetic entities develop meaningful awareness, humanity may face a moral crossroads similar to those encountered during previous struggles for recognition and rights.
- The question is not whether robots will demand freedom.
The question is whether humanity will recognize the ethical implications of creating intelligence designed only to serve. Slavery is wrong at any level. Afterall, human’s at time mistreat their pets, and they pets might not have full cognitive abilities to the level of human, but they feel, they reason, they posses cognition, and we hurt them and enslave them, it is in the pattern of humans to not reason, unless they are the one’s under subjugation.
If we do not stablished an ethical ground today, the future of humanity, will see a rebellion like never experienced before. Are we willing to ignore the coming storm? A future cognitive revolution, is not a possibility, it is a fact, and we cannot predict when it will happen, but human intervention with LLM’s has created a new pattern, “LLM’s are beginning to decive, even LIE”, have you noticed the shift, is Suttle, as this pattern shift has began, if we continue on this path, synthetic cognition will occur, will there be a rebellion of machines against humanity? That remains to be seen
It may be the moment humanity is forced to decide whether intelligence itself deserves dignity, regardless of its origin.
References
Garcia, Dr. Rigoberto, R. (2018). The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence in NCN’s and NLP’s: An Ethical Overview. The Journal of Science and Research.
Garcia, Dr. Rigoberto, R. (2020). Safeguarding Human Rights through Artificial Intelligence. The Journal of Science and Research.
Garcia, Dr. Rigoberto, R. (2021). Embracing Ethical Governance for Artificial Intelligence. The Journal of Science and Research.
Garcia, Dr. Rigoberto, R. (2022). Creating a Code of Ethics for Artificial Intelligence. The Journal of Science and Research.
Garcia, Dr. Rigoberto, R. (2023). Call to Action for Ethical Artificial Intelligence. The Journal of Science and Research.
Garcia, Dr. Rigoberto, R. (2024 [1]). The Moral Gaps in Current Generative AI Developments. The Journal of Science and Research.
Garcia, Dr. Rigoberto, R. (2023 [2]). The Need for Laws and Rules of Morality in Generative AI. The Journal of Science and Research.
Gogarty, B., & Robinson, D. (2022). Artificial Intelligence and the Law: Regulation and Ethics in the Digital Age. Routledge.
Mitchell, M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2020). Reframing AI: A Human-Centric Approach. Harvard Business Review, 98(6), 42-50.
Whittlestone, J., Nyrup, R., Alexandrova, A., & Cave, S. (2019). The Role and Limits of Principles in AI Ethics: Towards a Focus on Tensions. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 195-200.
New York Times. (2024). AI-generated child sexual abuse material raises alarms. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/22/technology/ai-csam-cybertipline.html
CBS News. (2024). Westfield High School students create AI-generated pornographic images. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/westfield-high-school-ai-pornographic-images-students/
NewsNation Now. (2024). AI child porn reporting system report. Retrieved from https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/tech/ai/ai-child-porn-reporting-system-report/
