\section{Introduction}
As an attempt to generalize Martin's Axiom to the stage of \(\omega_2\), Baumgartner~\cite{baumgartner1983iterated} proved the following theorem which shows the consistency of a forcing axiom for \(\omega_1\)-linked posets.

\begin{theorem}[Baumgartner~\cite{baumgartner1983iterated}]\label{BA}
It is consistent with CH and \(2^{\omega_1}>\omega_2\) that \(FA_\kappa(\mathfrak{B})\) holds for every \(\kappa < 2^{\omega_1}\), in which \(\mathfrak{B}\) is the class of all \(\sigma\)-closed, \(\omega_1\)-linked and well-met posets.
\end{theorem}

Here a poset \(P\) is \textit{well-met} if every pair of compatible conditions from \(P\) has a greatest lower bound. \(FA_\kappa(P)\) is the statement that for any family, \(\{D_\xi : \xi < \kappa\}\), of dense open subsets of \(P\), there exists a sufficiently generic filter \(F\subset P\) which intersects every \(D_\xi\). \(FA_\kappa(\mathfrak{B})\) states that \(FA_\kappa(P)\) holds for every \(P\in \mathfrak{B}\).

Many applications of Baumgartner's forcing axiom was studied by Tall~\cite{tall1994some}. However, Shelah~\cite{shelah1982generalized} showed that the full generalization of Martin's Axiom is inconsistent with CH + \(2^{\omega_1}>\omega_2\).

\begin{theorem}[Shelah~\cite{shelah1982generalized}]\label{ccInconsistent}
If CH holds and \(2^{\omega_1}>\omega_2\), then there is a \(\sigma\)-closed poset \(P\) satisfying the \(\omega_2\)-chain conditions such that FA\(_{\omega_2}(P)\) fails.
\end{theorem}

The inconsistency of such a na\"{i}ve generalization of Martin's Axiom does not come from the chain condition directly. Actually the counterexample constructed by Shelah is \(\omega_1\)-linked and the inconsistency comes from the absence of the well-met condition.

The first author of this paper observed that even if we add the well-metness condition, the forcing axioms can still fail to be consistent due to an excessively strong chain condition. Namely, we show the following result.

A poset \(P\) is \(\kappa\)-\textit{Knaster} if for every \(S\subset P\) with cardinality \(\kappa\), there exists a subset \(S_0 \subset S\) with cardinality \(\kappa\) such that the elements in \(S_0\) are pairwisely compatible in \(P\). A poset is \textit{countably compact} if every countable decreasing chain from the poset has a greatest lower bound. Let \(\mathfrak{K}\) be the class of all countably compact, \(\omega_2\)-Knaster and well-met posets.

\begin{theorem}\label{FAKnaster}
\(FA_{\omega_2}(\mathfrak{K})\) is inconsistent with ZFC + CH + \(2^{\omega_1}>\omega_2\).
\end{theorem}

\section{(S) Implies \(\Box_{\omega_1}\)}
We first introduce Shelah's forcing axiom (S)~\cite{shelah1978weak}.

A poset \(P\) is \(\omega_2\)-\textit{normal} if for any sequence \( \langle p_\xi : \xi\in \omega_2\rangle \) of conditions from \(P\), there exists a club \(C\subset \omega_2\) and a regressive function \(f:\omega_2\rightarrow\omega_2\) such that for any \(\alpha, \beta \in C\) with \( \cf\alpha, \cf\beta>\omega \) and \(f(\alpha) = f(\beta)\), \(p_\alpha\) and \(p_\beta\) are always compatible.

\begin{theorem}[Shelah~\cite{shelah1978weak}]\label{ShelahFA}
It is consistent with CH + \(2^{\omega_1}>\omega_2\) that \(FA_\kappa(\mathfrak{S})\) holds for every \(\kappa < 2^{\omega_1}\), in which \(\mathfrak{S}\) is the class of all \(\omega_2\)-normal, countably compact and well-met posets.
\end{theorem}

Let (S) denote Shelah's forcing axiom \(\forall \kappa < 2^{\omega_1}, FA_\kappa(\mathfrak{S})\). Clearly, (S) is a direct consequence of our inconsistent axiom \(FA_{\omega_2}(\mathfrak{K})\). We show that (S) implies \(\Box_{\omega_1}\).

\begin{lemma}\label{ShFAImpliesSquare}
(S) + CH + \(2^{\omega_1}>\omega_2\) implies \(\Box_{\omega_1}\).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We study the poset \(P\) of all partial functions \(p \fcolon S^2_1 \rightarrow P(\omega_2)\) in which \(S^2_1 = \{\alpha\in\omega_2: \cf\alpha = \omega_1\}\), satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}
     \item\label{ShFAImpliesSquare-Condition-1} \(\dom p\) is countable.
     \item\label{ShFAImpliesSquare-Condition-2} For \(\alpha\in\dom p\), \(p(\alpha)\) is a countable subset of \(\alpha\) and closed in \(\alpha\).
     \item\label{ShFAImpliesSquare-Condition-3} If \(\delta<\gamma\) are both in \(\dom p\) and \(\xi\) is a limit point of both \(p(\delta)\) and \(p(\gamma)\), then \(p(\delta)\cap \xi = p(\gamma)\cap \xi\).
\end{enumerate}

The order of the poset is defined by setting \(p\leq q\) if and only if
\begin{enumerate}
     \setcounter{enumi}{3}
     \item\label{ShFAImpliesSquare-Condition-4} \(\dom q\subset \dom p\).
     \item\label{ShFAImpliesSquare-Condition-5} For \(\alpha\in \dom q\), \(q(\alpha) \sqsubseteq p(\alpha)\).\footnote{\(q(\alpha) \sqsubseteq p(\alpha)\) means that \(p(\alpha)\) is an end extension of \(q(\alpha)\).}
     \item\label{ShFAImpliesSquare-Condition-6} For \(\alpha\in \dom q\),
     \[\min p(\alpha) \setminus q(\alpha) \geq \sup\bigcup_{\xi\in\dom q} (q(\xi)\cap\alpha), \]
     and \[\min p(\alpha) \setminus q(\alpha) \geq \sup(\dom q\cap \alpha).\]
\end{enumerate}

Clearly, this order is a transitive one. We first verify that \(P\) is well-met. Given \(p, q\in P\) of which the compatibility is witnessed by \(r_0\), define \(r : \dom p \cup \dom q \rightarrow P(\omega_2)\) such that \(r(\alpha) = p(\alpha)\cup q(\alpha)\). Clearly every \(r(\alpha)\) is a countable closed subset of \(\alpha\) and is an initial segment of \(r_0(\alpha)\). For any \(\delta<\gamma \in \dom r\) and \(\xi\), a limit point of both \(r(\delta)\) and \(r(\gamma)\), it must be true that \(\xi\) is also a limit point of both \(r_0(\delta)\) and \(r_0(\gamma)\). Since \(r_0\) is a condition from \(P\), we have that \(\xi\cap r(\delta)= \xi\cap r_0(\delta) = \xi\cap r_0(\gamma)= \xi\cap r(\gamma)\). Therefore, \(r\) is a condition from \(P\). Meanwhile, \(r\) extends both \(p\) and \(q\). For any \(\alpha\in \dom r\), since both \(p(\alpha)\) and \(q(\alpha)\) are initial segments of \(r_0(\alpha)\), \(r(\alpha)\) must be an end-extension of both of them. Condition~\ref{ShFAImpliesSquare-Condition-6} is witnessed by \(r_0\) and obviously \(r\) is the greatest lower bound of \(p\) and \(q\).

To see that \(P\) is countably compact, let \(\langle p_i: i\in\omega\rangle\) be a countable decreasing chain from \(P\). Define \(r : \bigcup_{i\in\omega} \dom p_i \rightarrow P(\omega_2)\) such that \(r(\alpha) = cl(\bigcup_{i\in\omega} p_i(\alpha))\). It is clear that \(r(\alpha)\) must be a countable subset of \(\alpha\) since there is at most one point in \(r(\alpha) - \bigcup_{i\in\omega} p_i(\alpha)\), which is \(\sup (\bigcup_{i\in\omega}p_i(\alpha))\) if it is not already in some \(p_i(\alpha)\). Let's say that this point is \textit{special} for \(\alpha\).

It suffices to verify condition~\ref{ShFAImpliesSquare-Condition-3} for \(r\). Let \(\xi\) be a limit point of both \(r(\gamma)\) and \(r(\delta)\) and \(i\) be the minimal natural number such that both \(\gamma\) and \(\delta\) are in \(\dom p_i\). Without loss of generality, we assume that \(\gamma < \delta\). If \(\xi\) is not special for either \(\gamma\) or \(\delta\), there exists \(j\in\omega\) such that \(\xi\in p_j(\gamma)\cap p_j(\delta)\). Therefore, \(\xi\cap r(\gamma) = \xi\cap p_j(\gamma)= \xi\cap p_j(\delta)= \xi\cap r(\delta)\). If \(\xi\) is special for \(\delta\), there exists \(j>i\) such that we can find an \(\eta\in p_j(\delta)\setminus p_i(\delta)\) and \(\eta<\xi<\gamma\). This contradicts condition~\ref{ShFAImpliesSquare-Condition-6}. If \(\xi\) is special for \(\gamma\) but not special for \(\delta\), there exists \(j_0\geq i\) such that \(\xi\in p_{j_0}(\delta)\). Now for any \(j>j_0\), by condition~\ref{ShFAImpliesSquare-Condition-6}, \(\min p_j(\gamma)\setminus p_{j_0}(\gamma) \geq \xi\) which is a contradiction.

Therefore, \(r\) extends the sequence \(\langle p_i: i\in\omega\rangle\) and it must be the greatest lower bound of this sequence by definition.

By simple density arguments, we can see that a sufficiently generic object must be a sequence \(C = \langle C_\beta: \beta\in S^2_1 \rangle\) such that every \(C_\beta\) is a club subset of \(\beta\) with ordertype \(\omega_1\).  We can extend the definition to the ordinals with countable cofinality. For \(\alpha\in\omega_2\) such that \(\cf\alpha=\omega\), if there is some \(\beta\in S^2_1\) such that \(\alpha\) is a limit point of \(C_\beta\), then define \(C_\alpha = C_\beta\cap\alpha\). By the coherence of \(C\) given by condition~\ref{ShFAImpliesSquare-Condition-6}, it does not depend on our choice of \(\beta\). If there is no such \(\beta\), then just define \(C_\alpha\) to be any cofinal subset with ordertype \(\omega\). This extension must be a \(\Box_{\omega_1}\)-sequence.

Now it suffices to verify that \(P\) is \(\omega_2\)-normal. Fix any sequence \(\langle p_\xi : \xi\in\omega_2 \rangle\) from \(P\) and a club \(C \subset \omega_2\) such that \(\dom p_\xi \subset \eta\) for any \(\xi < \eta \in C\).

Given \(\xi\in S^2_1\), define \[s_\xi = \sup ( (\dom p_\xi \cup \bigcup_{\alpha\in\dom p_\xi}p_\xi(\alpha)) \cap \xi) + 1.\] \(s_\xi\) is always strictly less than \(\xi\) since \(\cf \xi = \omega_1\).

For every \(\xi\in S^2_1\), let \(\gamma_0 = \otp(\dom p_\xi \cap s_\xi)\) and \(\gamma_1 = \otp(\dom p_\xi \setminus s_\xi)\). Without loss of generality, we may assume that both of them are independent from the choice of \(\xi\). Now we fix a function \(F:\omega_2\times \omega_1 \rightarrow V \) such that \[\forall \iota \in \omega_2, F(\iota, \cdot):\omega_1\rightarrow V \text{ emumerates } (\iota \times [\iota]^\omega)^{\gamma_0} \times ([\iota]^\omega)^{\gamma_1}.\] The existence of such a function \(F\) is given by our assumption CH.

For \(\xi\in\omega_2\), define \(f(\xi) = \langle s_\xi, \tau_\xi \rangle\) in which \(\tau_\xi\) is the unique \(\tau\) such that the first term of \(F(s_\xi, \tau)\) codes the restriction of the function \(p_\xi\) on \(\xi\), i.e., \[\{ \langle \alpha, p_\xi(\alpha) \rangle :  \alpha\in\dom p_\xi \cap \xi\},\] and the second term of \(F(s_\xi, \tau)\) codes the function \(\xi_i \mapsto p_\xi(\xi_i)\cap s_\xi\) in which \(i\in \gamma_1\) and \(\xi_i\) is the \(i\)-th element of \(\dom p_\xi \setminus s_\xi\).

\(f\) is a desired regressive function such that whenever \(\xi < \eta\) are in \(C\) with cofinality \(\omega_1\) and \(f(\xi) = f(\eta)\), \(p_\xi\) is compatible with \(p_\eta\). Given \(\xi<\eta\) with such properties, we define the condition \(r\) by simply taking \(r(\beta) = p_\xi(\beta) \cup p_\eta(\beta)\) for any \(\beta\in \dom p_\xi \cup \dom p_\eta\). Note that either \(p_\xi(\beta) = p_\eta(\beta)\) or one of them is not defined, in which case we understand it as an empty set. Therefore, \(r\) extends both \(p_\xi\) and \(p_\eta\) as long as it is a condition.

It suffices to verify condition~\ref{ShFAImpliesSquare-Condition-3} for \(r\). Let \(s = s_\xi = s_\eta\). Assume that \(\alpha\) is a limit point of both \(r(\gamma)\) and \(r(\delta)\). We may assume that \(\gamma\in \dom p_\xi \setminus s\) and \(\delta\in \dom p_\eta \setminus s\). By the definition of the club \(C\), \(\gamma<\eta\leq \delta\), so we have \(\alpha<\gamma<\delta\) hence \(\alpha\leq s\) since \(\alpha\) is a limit point of \(p_\eta(\delta)\). Assuming \(\gamma=\xi_i\) and \(\delta= \eta_j\),
we have \[\alpha\cap p_\xi(\xi_i) = \alpha\cap p_\eta(\eta_i) = \alpha\cap p_\eta(\eta_j),\] in which the first equality comes from the definition of \(f\) and the second comes from the coherence property of \(p_\eta\).
\end{proof}

\section{A nonspecial \(\omega_2\)-Aronszajn Tree}
We also need the following theorem from Todor\v{c}evi\'{c}~\cite{todorcevic1989special} (also see~\cite{todorcevic2007walks} Chapter~7).

\begin{theorem}[Todor\v{c}evi\'{c}~\cite{todorcevic1989special}]\label{NonSpecialATree}
If \(\theta\geq \omega_2\) and there is a \(\Box(\theta)\)-sequence, then there is a nonspecial \(\theta\)-Aronszajn tree in the form of \(T(\rho_0^C)\) in which \(C\) is a nonspecial \(\Box(\theta)\)-sequence.
\end{theorem}

Shelah-Stanley~\cite{shelah1988weakly} has a similar result which states that \(\Box(\theta)\) implies the existence of a nonspecial \(\theta\)-Aronszajn tree. However, their construction is essentially different. The trees constructed in Shelah-Stanley~\cite{shelah1988weakly} admit \(\omega\)-ascent paths which make the nonspeciality of those trees robust. According to the historical remarks in~\cite{shelah1988weakly}, Laver first observed in 1970s that an \(\omega_2\)-Aronszajn tree with an ascent path cannot be special and later Baumgartner was able to construct such trees from \(\Box_{\omega_1}\) (see Devlin~\cite{devlin1983reduced}). However, as we will see soon, trees in the form of \(T(\rho_0^C)\) can be easily specialized.

\section{Specializing the \(\omega_2\)-Aronszajn Trees}
In this section, we show that the forcing axiom \(FA_{\omega_2}(\mathfrak{K})\) is strong enough to specialize all the trees in the form of \(T(\rho_0^C)\) for any nontrivial \(\Box(\omega_2)\)-sequence \(C\).

The following is a basic property of the sequence \(\rho_2\).
\begin{theorem}[Todor\v{c}evi\'{c}~\cite{todorcevic2007walks}]\label{rho2Unbounded}
  The following are equivalent for any C-sequence \(C = \langle C_\alpha : \alpha\in\Lim(\theta) \rangle\) on a regular uncountable cardinal \(\theta\) and the corresponding \(\rho_2\) sequence.
  \begin{enumerate}
    \item \(C\) is nontrivial.
    \item For every family \(A\) of \(\theta\) pairwisely disjoint finite subsets of \(\theta\) and every integer \(n\), there is a subfamily \(B\) of \(A\) of size \(\theta\) such that \(\rho_2(\alpha, \beta)>n\) for all \(\alpha\in a\), \(\beta\in b\) and \(a\neq b\) in \(B\).
  \end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

The following lemma is essentially Lemma~6.3.3 of~\cite{todorcevic2007walks}. We include the proof here for completeness.

\begin{lemma}[Todor\v{c}evi\'{c}]\label{everySubsetContainsAnAntichain}
For any C-sequence \(C\) on \(\omega_2\), the tree \(T = T(\rho_2)\) has the property that every subset \(X\subset T\) of cardinality \(\omega_2\) contains an antichain of cardinality \(\omega_2\).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider a subset \(X\subset T\) of cardinality \(\omega_2\). We may assume that \(X\) is a level set and by replacing \(X = \{x_\alpha : \alpha\in\Gamma\}\) by a set lying inside its downwards closure, we may assume that the set consists of successor nodes of the tree. Let \(K\subset [\omega_2]^2\) be such that \[X = \{x_\alpha : \xi\in\Gamma\} = \{\rho_2(\cdot, \beta)\upharpoonright(\alpha+1) : \{\alpha,\beta\}\in K\}.\]
Shrinking \(X\) further, we may assume that pairs in \(K\) are pairwisely disjoint and \(\rho_2\) is constantly \(n\) on \(K\) since \(\rho_2\) only takes values of natural numbers. Apply Theorem~\ref{rho2Unbounded} we have \(K_0\subset K\) of cardinality \(\omega_2\) such that for all \(\{\alpha, \beta\}, \{\gamma, \delta\}\in K_0\) such that \(\alpha<\beta, \gamma<\delta\) and \(\alpha<\gamma\), we have \(\rho_2(\alpha, \gamma)>n\). Then \[X_0 = \{\rho_2(\cdot, \beta)\upharpoonright(\alpha+1) : \{\alpha,\beta\}\in K_0\}\] is an antichain in \(T\).
\end{proof}

We also need the following property of the tree \(T(\rho_2)\).

\begin{lemma}(CH)\label{rho2IsSufficientlyCoherent}
For any nontrivial \(\Box(\omega_2)\)-sequence \(\langle C_\alpha : \alpha\in\omega_2 \rangle\), the tree \(T = T(\rho_2)\) has the following property:

For any level sequence \(\langle p_\xi : \omega\rightarrow (T)_\xi \mid \xi\in\omega_2 \rangle\) such that every \(p_\xi\) is injective, there is a stationary \(\Gamma\subset \omega_2\) such that for any \(\xi<\eta\in\Gamma\) and any \(i, j\in\omega\), \[p_\xi(i)<p_\eta(i)\iff p_\xi(j)<p_\eta(j).\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any \(\delta\in\omega_2\) such that \(\cf \delta = \omega_1\) and any countable set \(X\subset\omega_2\) above \(\delta\), there exists a \(\delta'<\delta\) such that for any \(\alpha\in X\) and \(\xi\in tr(\delta, \alpha)\), either \(\delta\in \Lim C_\xi\) or \(C_\xi\cap\delta\subset \delta'\).

Clearly if \(\xi\in tr(\delta, \alpha)\) and \(\delta\in \Lim C_\xi\), the \(\xi\) must be the least element of \(tr(\delta, \alpha)\) above \(\delta\). Therefore, \(\delta'\) has the property that if \(\gamma\in[\delta', \delta)\), then the greatest element of \(tr(\gamma, \alpha)\) below \(\delta\) is \(\min(C_\delta\setminus\gamma)\) by the coherence of the square sequence.

Now if \(\alpha\in X\) and \(\gamma\in[\delta', \delta)\), and \(\xi = \min(tr(\delta, \alpha)\setminus(\delta+1))\), then
  \begin{equation*}
   \rho_2(\gamma, \alpha)=
    \begin{cases}
      \rho_2(\gamma, \delta) + \rho_2(\delta, \alpha) & \mbox{if \(\delta\in\Lim C_\xi\),}\\
      \rho_2(\gamma, \delta) + \rho_2(\delta, \alpha) -1 & \mbox{otherwise.}\\
    \end{cases}\end{equation*}

For each \(p_\xi\), let \(X_\xi = \{\alpha_\xi^i : p_\xi(i) = \rho_2(\cdot, \alpha_\xi^i)\upharpoonright\xi\}\). Apply the previous argument to every \(\xi\) and get an ordinal \(\xi'<\xi\). By shrinking the index set to a stationary \(\Gamma\subset\omega_2\), we may assume that for any \(\xi\in\Gamma\), \(\xi'<\xi\) is an constant ordinal \(s\) and \(p_\delta(i)\upharpoonright s\) is constantly \(t_i\). For any \(\xi\in\Gamma\) and \(\gamma\in[s, \xi)\), \[\rho_2(\gamma, \alpha_\xi^i) = \rho_2(\gamma, \xi) + \rho_2(\xi, \alpha_\xi^i) + \epsilon_\xi^i,\] in which \(\epsilon_\xi^i\) is either \(0\) or \(-1\).

By further shrinking \(\Gamma\), we may assume that neither \(\rho_2(\xi, \alpha_\xi^i)\) nor \(\epsilon_\xi^i\) depends on \(\xi\). Therefore, if \(\rho_2(\gamma,\alpha_\xi^i) = \rho_2(\gamma,\alpha_\eta^i)\) for some \(i\), it is also true for any \(i\), which completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}(CH)
For any nontrivial \(\Box(\omega_2)\)-sequence \(\langle C_\alpha : \alpha\in\omega_2 \rangle\), there is a countably compact, well-met poset with \(\omega_2\)-Knaster poset which specializes the tree \(T(\rho_0)\)
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since there is a natural order-preserving mapping from \(T(\rho_0)\) to \(T(\rho_2)\), it suffices to specialize \(T = T(\rho_2)\).

Let \(P\) be the poset of all the conditions \(p\) satisfying
\begin{enumerate}
  \item \(p\) is a partial function from \(\omega_1\) to \(T^\omega\) such that \(\dom p\) is countable, and
  \item for every \(\alpha\in\dom p\), \(p(\alpha)\) is a countable antichain of \(T\),
\end{enumerate}
ordered by reversed inclusion.

It is clear that \(P\) is countably compact, well-met and it specializes the tree \(T\). It suffices to verify the \(\omega_2\)-Knaster property of \(P\).

Fix a sequence \(\langle p_\xi : \xi\in\omega_2 \rangle\). By CH and a standard \(\Delta\)-system argument, we may assume that the \(\dom p_\xi\)'s are constantly \(D\). For the sake of simplicity, we only verify the \(\omega_2\)-Knaster property for the case that \(D\) is a singleton \(\{d\}\) and identify \(p_\xi\) with \(p_\xi(d):\omega\rightarrow T\). In the general case that \(D\) is a countable subset of \(\omega_1\), the proof is the same since \(p_\xi(d)\) is already a countable set.

For \(p_\xi\) such that \(\cf \xi = \omega_1\), define \[s_\xi = \sup (\xi \cap (\{\hht(p_\xi(i)): i\in\omega\} \cup \{\Delta(p_\xi(i), p_\xi(j)) : i, j\in \omega\})).\] We have \(s_\xi < \xi\) and without loss of generality we may assume that \(s_\xi\) is constantly \(s\) for all \(\xi\). By futher shrinking the set, we may assume that \(p_\xi\) is a function \(p_\xi : \omega\rightarrow (T)_\xi\) and there is a sequence of nodes \(\langle t_i : i\in \omega\rangle\) from \((T)_{\hht(s)}\) such that for any \(\xi\), \(p_\xi(i)\upharpoonright \hht(s) = t_i\).

Now we can directly apply Lemma~\ref{rho2IsSufficientlyCoherent} and Lemma~\ref{everySubsetContainsAnAntichain} to this level set and this completes the proof.
\end{proof}

If the forcing axiom \(FA_{\omega_2}(\mathfrak{K})\) held, then for any \(\Box(\omega_2)\)-sequence \(C\), the tree \(T(\rho_0^C)\) must be special. On the other hand, since this axiom implies (S), hence \(\Box_{\omega_1}\), there exists such a tree which is nonspecial by Theorem~\ref{NonSpecialATree}, This is a contradiction and finishes the proof of Theorem~\ref{FAKnaster}.

\section{Conclusion}
As we already discussed, this inconsistency result is different from Shelah's Theorem~\ref{ccInconsistent}. It focuses on the chain condition rather than the well-metness condition. A related result can be found in L\"{u}cke~\cite{lucke2017ascending}.

\begin{theorem}[L\"{u}cke~\cite{lucke2017ascending}]\label{FAImpliesAWeaklyCompact}
  Let \(\kappa\) be an uncountable regular cardinal with \(\kappa = \kappa^{<\kappa}\). If \(\kappa^+\) is not weakly compact in \(L\), then there is a \(\kappa\)-closed, well-met partial order \(P\) satisfying the \(\kappa^+\)-chain condition such that FA\(_{\kappa^+}(P)\) fails.
\end{theorem}

On the other hand, Theorem~\ref{FAKnaster} in together with Theorem~\ref{ccInconsistent} sets a pretty tight bound on the generalization of Martin's Axiom to \(\omega_2\). If we compare this inconsistent axiom, FA\(_{\omega_2}(\mathfrak{K})\), with (S), theoretically speaking, there is an essential gap between the \(\omega_2\)-Knaster property and \(\omega_2\)-normality. For any \(\omega_2\)-sequence of forcing conditions, the pressing-down function requires the understanding of at least a club many of them, while Knaster property only requests an arbitary subset with cardinality \(\omega_2\). The different destinies of the corresponding forcing axioms also point to and result from that gap. However pragmatically, this gap is narrow in the sense that many proofs involving the Knaster property actually factorize through constructing pressing-down functions, which suggests that somehow Shelah's forcing axiom (S) is quite close to optimal.

\section{Acknowledgement}
The research of the first author is partially supported by grants from NSERC(455916) and CNRS(UMR7586).

The second author would like to thank Prof. Justin Moore for helpful conversation. The research of the second author is partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1854367.

\Addresses

\bibliographystyle{siam}


\subsection{Which Rights Can Robots and AI Have?}

Current AI and robots are not sentient beings that deserve consideration similar to humans. Scholars often use this argument to oppose any legal rights to electronic entities. However, supporters of electronic personhood note that some rights are not predicated upon humanity, consciousness, or sentience. The set of rights we chose for the survey, therefore, includes the ones that either 1) have been proposed by scholars,  2) have precedents of being granted to non-natural entities, or 3) are directly related to AI and robots.

\begin{enumerate}
    \item \textbf{Right to Sue and Be Sued}:~ All legal persons should be able to defend their interests in the court of law by suing another legal person for damages. Similarly, legal persons should be subject to being sued by others to pay for damages. If electronic legal personhood is adopted, therefore, AI and robots might be granted the right to sue and be sued. In tort law, for instance, a claimant that suffered any loss from the action of an electronic agent might need to obtain remedy directly from the AI or robot, rather than from its owner or manufacturer, if this right were to be granted.

    \item \textbf{Right to Hold Assets}:~ The punishment of a legal person after a lawsuit can happen through different forms, such as imprisonment and confiscation of assets. The difficulty of punishing AI and robots has been at the center of electronic legal personhood discussion. Scholars have questioned whether it is possible to apply usual human punishments to these automated agents~\cite{asaro2007robots, bryson2017and, asaro201111}. Some have pointed out that extending such legal status to electronic agents could create ``unaccountable'' legal persons. One possible solution that has been proposed~\cite{turner2018robot} is to grant the right to hold assets to AI and robots so they can be punished, similarly to the way corporations are fined.

    \item \textbf{Right to Enter Contracts}:~ Another important aspect we consider is the possibility of entering contracts, i.e., legally binding agreements. Contracts are only valid if parties are legal persons; electronic legal persons might be granted the right to enter contracts on their own. For instance, at the moment, online users enter contracts with AI-service providers such as automatic online bidders~\cite{chopra2011legal}. If robots and AI were to own such rights, online users could set an agreement with electronic agents directly instead of with their manufacturer or owner.

    \item \textbf{Right Granted Under Copyright Law}:~ Some AI algorithms have shown the capacity to compose music~\cite{mogren2016c}, create paintings~\cite{zhu2017unpaired}, and generate face pictures~\cite{karras2019style} of high quality. Art dealers have already started adding AI-created artwork to the market.\footnote{A portrait generated by an AI program has been sold for \$432,000.~\url{https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45980863}} Some law scholars have already proposed intellectual property rights for completely autonomous AI.\footnote{The Artificial Inventor Program.~\url{http://artificialinventor.com/}} Should AI-generated art be copyrighted, and if so, who should hold such right~\cite{copyrightgan}? We thus consider the possibility of extending the right to copyright for creative AI and robots.

    \item \textbf{Right to Freedom of Speech}:~ The right to freedom of speech is commonly known by its proposition on the first amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits the government from impeding the free exercise of speech, religion, and press. The relationship between this amendment and electronic agents can be found in the deployment of AI reporters and writers. The role of AI in journalism is expanding around the world, already taking up much of the news produced today~\cite{carlson2015robotic}. Public discussion on the topic also involves how AI might generate fake news or further propagate information that is harmful to society~\cite{openaiwriter, zellers2019defending}. The right to freedom of speech could be argued to affect electronic agents in that the government could repress their self-generated opinions under various arguments, such as the possibility of framing it as harmful and fake news.

    \item \textbf{Right to a Nationality}:~ Nationality is a legal relationship between a nation (i.e., a non-natural legal person) and an individual. This relationship often accords some state jurisdiction over the individual, who is granted certain rights and duties under the nation, such as the right to vote. An honorary South Arabian citizenship was granted to Sophia in 2017, making it the first robot ever to have a nationality~\cite{sophia}. Inspired by this event, we propose the right to a nationality for AI and robots.

    \item \textbf{Right to Choose Occupation Freely}:~ Robots are commonly compared to slaves in the sense that they are property and should be treated as servants~\cite{bryson2010robots}. Since one of the critical aspects of slavery is that slaves cannot choose their occupation, we tackle the right to choose occupation freely. If electronic agents were to be granted this right, humans would not be able to enforce the highly intelligent and autonomous robots and AI to work without their ``consent'', independently of how that might be defined.

    \item \textbf{Right to Remuneration}:~ Again, from the analogy between electronic agents and slaves, we address the right to remuneration as slaves did not receive compensation for their work. Robots and AI, if granted this right, would have to receive some form of reward for their work, such as a salary. This right is framed similarly to the right to hold assets since remuneration is often given in such form.

    \item \textbf{Right to Privacy}:~ The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the starting point of the regulation of AI and robots, and much of its content focuses on data protection and privacy in particular. GDPR aims to ensure that electronic agents must be transparent, and consumers can erase all the data provided to AI systems. Scholars have debated whether transparency of systems and privacy of users can indeed go hand in hand or whether they are different concepts~\cite{transparency&privacy}. How, then can the transparency of AI and robots be defined alongside their privacy? Can AI and robots have their ``personal'' information protected? We propose the right to privacy for AI and robots as a provocation to the proposal of complete transparency of electronic agents. If electronic agents were to be granted this right, users might not be able to rely on AI and robots' transparency since it might be considered their private information.

    \item \textbf{Right to Life}:~ Robots and AI are not alive the same way humans are; people, however, find it hard to turn off (or ``kill'') social robots~\cite{darling2016extending}. The anthropomorphization of robots has been a controversial issue discussed by various scholars. On one side of the discussion, researchers argue that it might be dangerous to attribute lifelike-like features to electronic agents~\cite{richards2013should}, while other scholars believe that the \textit{Android Fallacy} could be useful in some particular situations~\cite{androidfallacy}. Some scholars have investigated how to be sure that the off-switch of a robot or AI will not be disabled by the electronic agent itself~\cite{hadfield2017off}. As a provocation to all the discussion revolving the ``life'' of AI and robots, we thus propose the right to life for electronic agents.

    \item \textbf{Right Against Cruel Punishment and Treatment}:~ Darling~\cite{darling2016extending} has proposed to extend legal protections to social robots similar to the ones addressing animals and pets. Instead of focusing on the moral consideration of robots and AI, this argument has the premise on Kant's argument that cruelty towards animals (in Darling's case social robots) could lead to cruel behavior among humans. We approach this idea as the right against cruel punishment and treatment.

\end{enumerate}

The 11 rights articulated above were presented as declarative statements in the survey. Since the way rights are phrased may cause biases to online users, we employed three different styles that were randomly assigned to each participant:
\begin{itemize}
    \item \textit{Indirect:~} Electronic agents (i.e., AI or robot) appear as the object of the statement (e.g., ``No one should be able to turn off or kill \underline{AI programs}.'').

    \item \textit{Direct:~} Electronic agents are the subject of the sentence (e.g., ``\underline{Robots} should receive payment for their work.'').

    \item \textit{Explicit:~} A variant of the second form, where the word ``right'' is explicitly used (e.g., ``\underline{Robots} should have the \underline{right} to be paid for their work.'').
\end{itemize}

We address both robots and AI separately and differentiate them through the presence or absence of a physical body. Finally, we presented robots and AI in two different forms: merely calling them ``robots'' or ``AI programs'' and by explicitly introducing them as entirely autonomous (e.g., ``fully autonomous robots''). This condition is later examined as the \textit{level of autonomy}, and the objective here is to observe if this factor would change people's perception of AI and robot rights.

\begin{figure*}
    \centering
    \hspace*{-5mm}
    \includegraphics[width=1.03\textwidth]{imgs/method1.png}
    \caption{Overview of experiment. The cards presented are examples of each intervention.
    }
    \label{fig:method}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Interventions}

Whenever new legal entities were granted rights and duties, individual members of society initially perceived it unreasonable and unnecessary~\cite{van2018we}. Likewise, Turner~\cite{turner2018robot} conjectures that future societies may develop a different perspective on AI and robot rights, as past societies have done so for animal and human rights. We thus developed four intervention designs to debunk common misunderstandings around the rights and duties of electronic agents. Each design tackles a different aspect discussed by ethicists and lawmakers who either support or oppose electronic legal personhood.

The first intervention design is called \textbf{normative} and lists sets of basic requirements for legal personhood. The name comes from the research field normative ethics, which focuses on the criteria or norms of judgments. This intervention started by stating the concept of legal personhood, presented sets of requirements identified by scholars~\cite{hubbard2010androids, van2018we} (e.g., the example in Fig.~\ref{fig:method}), then ended with a statement that said ``\textit{there lacks a clear consensus on which characteristics or abilities an entity should have for legal personhood to be granted.}'' The goal was to inform people that there exist disagreements involving legal personhood, even among scholars.

The second intervention design tackles the widespread view that humanity is required to grant all rights and duties. We call this design \textbf{descriptive}, inspired by descriptive ethics, a study on people's judgment of moral actions. Compared to normative ethics, the motivation for descriptive ethics focuses more on people's reaction to reason a phenomenon through sharing direct concepts.  This intervention started by explaining the legal personhood then showed visual cards that help \textit{debunk the misconception that legal personhood is exclusive to natural entities}.

The third intervention design, called
\textbf{non-human}, also tackles the common misunderstanding that humanity is a crucial requirement for holding legal personhood. This intervention differs from the descriptive one in that it \textit{uses examples of non-human entities that are currently granted legal personhood, rather than directly introducing the concept.} Fig.~\ref{fig:method} shows an example of the Whanganui River that has been given legal personhood in New Zealand.

The last intervention design is called \textbf{human} and explains how the kinds of rights granted differed even among humans. This intervention \textit{gave examples of women, slaves, and children, all of whom have or had limited rights in the past.}

Each intervention design was composed of 6-9 visual cards along with corresponding references. These cards were specifically designed to enhance visual aids in comprehending the intervention content. Only one card was shown on the screen at a time, and the participants had to spend a minimum of 4 seconds per card; had they clicked next before the minimum allotted time, they received a reminder to pay more attention to the intervention.

All interventions proposed in this paper use as a starting point the discussion presented by Van Genderen~\cite{van2018we}.
The author highlights the elasticity of legal personhood by stating and exemplifying how ``legal standards are not equal for natural person'' (i.e., human intervention), alongside a discussion of how non-human legal persons were granted such status (i.e., non-human and descriptive interventions). In his work, Van Genderen also illustrates the lack of consensus on which requirements are necessary for legal personhood to be granted by discussing various models (i.e., normative intervention).
Nevertheless, the proposed interventions are arguably somewhat supportive of AI and robot rights. We, however, highlight the concept of legal personality as a premise for our work. This legal concept asserts a certain elasticity in who (or what) is to be granted in determining legal status. We neither support nor oppose AI and robot rights, but simply postulate our interventions on a more inclusive construct.

This interventional study is of extreme importance as experiences with previously neglected entities have shown that society often changes their perception regarding such entities upon clearing certain misconceptions~\cite{turner2018robot}. Slaves, for instance, were considered to be inferior beings. Society, nevertheless, was able to clear this misconception, leading to the current state where slavery is condemned. Understanding whether people's stances can change upon these interventions can indicate whether future society might indeed support or oppose AI and robot rights, and to what extent.

\subsection{Survey Design}

The survey presented to each participant a consent form for the use of data. After agreeing to the research terms, the participants answered the extent to which they agreed with 11 statements describing each right, presented to them in random order. The phrasing of each scenario was also randomly selected among indirect, direct, and explicit styles. The answers could be chosen from a 5-point Likert scale: strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, and strongly agree. Each statement was presented in a way to enhance the readability as much as possible by emphasizing the essential parts by underlining them, along with larger font sizes and different colors.

The participants were then shown one of the four interventions in Fig.~\ref{fig:method} that was randomly chosen. An attention check question immediately followed the intervention to ensure the central concepts were delivered. For example, the attention check following the normative intervention asked whether there exists a consensus in the requirements for legal personhood. The participants who failed the attention check had to re-read the intervention cards until they gave a correct answer.

The participants then were presented another set of 11 randomly selected and ordered statements regarding AI and robot rights to which they responded with the same 5-point Likert scale. Finally, demographic questions followed, asking their age, political views, as well as general attitudes towards AI and robots using a modified subscale (Negative Attitudes toward Situations and Interactions with Robots, Cronbach's $\alpha$=0.85) of NARS (Negative Attitude towards Robot Scale)~\cite{syrdal2009negative}. Throughout the survey, a built-in timer was used to reassure the participants devoted enough time to read and digest the information provided on their screen and prompted a reminder if one clicked the next button faster than the minimum time allocated to each statement. As a result, each participant was assigned to one of the 2 (agent types) $\times$ 2 (autonomy levels) $\times$ 4 (interventions) experiment conditions. Participants either agreed or disagreed with 11 statements on AI and robot rights presented two times (before and after the intervention) with randomly assigned phrasing styles for each statement.

\subsection{Demographics and Data Cleaning}

We conducted a survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk (Mturk/AMT) by creating an assignment (HIT), titled ``What Do You Think About Robots and AI?'', and made it available to a maximum of 1700 online users. Participants were required to be in the US and have at least 500 completed HITs with an approval rate of over 95\%. Even though AMT samples are known to be not representative of the general population, the platform has shown to provide a comparable quality to survey panels~\cite{dupuis2013analysis, buhrmester2011amazon}. We have chosen to conduct our experiment with US residents for practical purposes. Although we motivate our work with the European proposal of legal status for sophisticated robots~\cite{eurecommendation}, the scholarly discussion on the topic has not been restricted to Europe. After completing the survey, participants that failed the attention check more than once or had duplicated IP addresses were discarded for analysis. All the participants were paid regardless of the final data use.

Participants took several minutes to read the entire intervention cards, while some took tens of minutes. Our interventions were designed to be short and aimed to clear a single common misconception around the discussion of AI and robot rights. In order to deal with respondents that might have either 1) searched for more information on the topic or 2) took a long time between reading the intervention and answering the proposed questions, we discarded responses from participants who took more than five minutes on the intervention, which corresponded to 5\% of data. After cleaning, the average time spent on interventions for all users was 97.56 seconds. The cumulative distribution of time spent on interventions is presented in Appendix B. The data cleaning process resulted in 1270 valid responses. Each valid participant took on average 386.20$\pm$156.85 seconds, with a median time of 354.00 seconds, to complete the entire survey. Table~\ref{tab:demographics} displays user demographics. The survey includes more women than the official US population (0.90 against 0.97 male/female) and shows an age concentration of 25- to 49-year-old. The participants largely declare themselves as politically liberal, with more than half reported to have received at least a university or college degree.

\begin{table}[ht]
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{l|r}
    \toprule
        \textbf{Demographic Attributes} & \textbf{N (\%) $~~~~~$} \\
        \midrule

        Women &  665 (52.36\%)\\
        Men &  599 (47.17\%)\\
        Other & 6  \hspace{1ex}(0.47\%)\\
        \midrule
        18-24 years old &  99 \hspace{1ex}(7.80\%) \\
        25-34 years old & 466 (36.69\%)\\
        35-49 years old & 455 (35.83\%)\\
        50-64 years old & 211  (16.61\%)\\
        64+ years old   &  39 \hspace{1ex}(3.07\%)\\
        \midrule
        Education up to high school  &  411 (32.36\%)\\
        Education up to university or college & 698 (54.96\%)\\
        Education of graduate school or more &  161 (12.68\%)\\
        \midrule
        Political view is conservative & 356 (28.03\%) \\
        Political view is liberal &  613 (48.27\%)\\
        Political view is moderate &  301 (23.70\%)\\
        \midrule

        \textbf{Total} & \textbf{1270} \\
    \bottomrule
    \end{tabular}
    \caption{Demographics of survey participants.}
    \label{tab:demographics}
\end{table}

\subsection{Pre-Stance}

The survey results indicate that the participants are initially opposed to granting rights to AI and robots ($\mu_{pre}$\textless0), as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:prestance}. The only exception is the right against cruel punishment and treatment, which has a positive value. The right to hold assets and the right to life were the most rejected among all. The agent type (i.e., AI or robot) does not affect these outcomes ($P$=.231). Whenever the complete autonomy of electronic agents was explicitly introduced, people have shown to be marginally more open to the idea of electronic agents being granted rights ($g$=0.104). In terms of demographics, those older than 34 are more likely to oppose AI and robot rights than younger people ($\Delta$ \textless-0.281, $ P $ \textless.005). Politically liberal or moderate participants are more supportive of the proposal than conservatives ($\Delta$\textgreater0.211, $P$\textless.01). Finally, those who demonstrated a more positive attitude towards AI and robots based on the NARS scale exhibited higher pre-stance values ($P$\textless.001).

\begin{figure*}[t!]
    \centering

        \begin{subfigure}[t]{\textwidth}
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{imgs/prestance.png}
        \caption{Pre-stance}
        \label{fig:prestance}
    \end{subfigure}%
    \vspace{1mm}

    \begin{subfigure}[t]{\textwidth}
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{imgs/poststance.png}
        \caption{Post-stance}
        \label{fig:poststance}
    \end{subfigure}
    \vspace{-2mm}
    \caption{Stance towards AI and robot rights sorted by average stance.}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[t!]
    \centering

    \includegraphics[scale=0.43]{imgs/effectsize2.png}

    \caption{The mean effect size upon each intervention. The red dashed line indicates the threshold defined as a moderate effect size (i.e., 0.3).
    }
    \label{fig:intervention}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{The Effect of Interventions}

The joint analysis of the pre- and post-stance values can reveal flexibility in people's initial thoughts. Fig.~\ref{fig:intervention} shows the standardized effect size (i.e., Hedge's $g$) in the y-axis across all 11 rights as a function of the intervention type in the x-axis. The non-human design is consistently the most effective intervention, followed by the descriptive design. The mean stance-change results (i.e., $\mu_{sc}$) and their significance levels appear in Appendix A. We could observe a meaningful difference in the intervention time and its effect; those who showed positive stance-change took on average 6.49 seconds longer to read intervention cards ($P$<.05).

The agent type (i.e., mentioning AI or robot) is not significant to the intervention effect ($P$=.307). The level of autonomy, on the other hand, partly plays a part in people's stance-change showing higher values if the agent is explicitly presented as entirely autonomous ($g$=0.134). In terms of demographics, a larger NARS scale correlates with a larger stance-change ($P$\textless.05), indicating that a more positive pre-perception of AI and robots leads to a more substantial intervention effect. Men show marginally smaller overall stance-change than women ($\Delta$=-0.082, $P$\textless.05). We present findings of the four intervention designs, from the most effective to the least, in order.

\subsubsection{Non-human Intervention}
Exemplifying non-human entities granted rights and duties ($N$ =306) led to the largest stance-change, with a moderate to high effect size ($g$=0.440, $\mu_{sc}$=0.408, shown in the figure annotated as `Overall' which indicates the overall effect size in all rights). This positive effect can be found across all rights, except for the right against cruel punishment and treatment. We may not have observed changes because its pre-stance was already positive, and hence, there is little room for a change. Among the remaining ten rights, the right to enter contracts ($g$=0.442, $\mu_{sc}$=0.582), the right to sue and be sued ($g$=0.439, $\mu_{sc}$=0.598), and the right hold assets ($g$=0.421, $\mu_{sc}$=0.546) showed the largest shift in stance-change due to this intervention, in order of effect size.

\subsubsection{Descriptive Intervention}
This intervention design ($N$ =296) was aimed at correcting the public misconception that humanity is a requirement for legal personhood and was the second most effective design, with an overall effect size of 0.278. The right to own assets was subject to the greatest stance-change upon this intervention ($g$=0.264, $\mu_{sc}$=0.341), while the right against cruel punishment again demonstrated the smallest ($g$=0.044, $\mu_{sc}$~not significant at $P$\textless=0.05) stance-change among the participants. This design, which takes a more direct and progressive approach in delivering the message, is more effective than the normative design. We thus hypothesize that providing a straightforward description for participants produce a more significant and positive stance-change.

\subsubsection{Normative Intervention}
This intervention design ($N$ =286) informed the participants that there are no clear and agreed-upon criteria for legal personhood to be viable and showed a marginal effect ($g$=0.143, $\mu_{sc}$=0.135). This was the third most effective design. The most significant positive stance-change recorded under this intervention is the right to life ($g$=0.189, $\mu_{sc}$=0.274). Fig.~\ref{fig:intervention} shows that normative intervention mostly results in marginal or null differences in people's stances.

\subsubsection{Human Intervention}
This intervention design ($N$=382) aimed to explain to the participants that not all humans enjoyed the same rights, and has shown to be the least effective ($g$=0.127, $\mu_{sc}$=0.128). Even though stance-changes were positive and significant in most cases (see Appendix A), their effect sizes are marginal. We posit that this intervention's marginal effect is the result of not dealing with any non-human or electronic entity during the intervention. Participants did not relate the past neglect of human rights to the current situation of artificial entities.

Why is the non-human design more effective than human design, although both are using examples? We posit that people relate the past attribution of rights to non-human entities to apply the same concept to electronic entities. Nevertheless, we note that the right to sue and be sued and the right to enter contracts are major examples of rights that apply to corporations that our non-human intervention explicitly introduced. This connection may have contributed to the most considerable intervention effect shown in these rights.

\subsection{Post-Stance}

Our results indicate that interventions were moderately successful in changing people's perception of AI and robot rights, shown by the overall moderate intervention effect, especially when the participants were presented the non-human intervention.
Fig.~\ref{fig:poststance} shows the mean post-stance revealed by the participants regardless of the intervention. Even though no single right had its mean stance changed from `disagree' to `agree', stance-change was positive across all rights (e.g., `strongly disagree' became `disagree'). Out of the participants that largely opposed granting rights to AI and robot (i.e., $\mu_{pre}$\textless0), 16.61\% of them shifted their attitude after the intervention (i.e., $\mu_{post}$\textgreater0).
The survey results did not indicate any relationship between the agent type and post-stance ($P$=.678). However, participants were more supportive of AI and robots if they were explicitly introduced as completely autonomous ($g$=0.170). Post-stance values showed similar trends to participants' pre-stance in terms of demographics: in Fig.~\ref{fig:demographics}, politically liberal and moderate participants were more supportive than conservatives ($\Delta$\textgreater0.262, $P$\textless.005), similar to younger users (\textless35 years old, $\Delta$\textgreater0.335, $P$\textless.005) and participants with a more positive attitude towards AI and robots measured by the adapted NARS scale ($P$\textless.05).

\begin{figure}[htpb!]
    \centering
    \hspace*{-3mm}
    \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{imgs/demographics-post-star.png}
    \caption{Post-stance by demographics and treatment group, where \textit{***} indicates significant difference across groups at $P$\textless.001.}
    \label{fig:demographics}
\end{figure}

\section{Representativeness of MTurk Results}

Even though Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) has been found to respond with similar quality to survey panels~\cite{buhrmester2011amazon, dupuis2013analysis}, its samples are not necessarily demographically representative of a country's population (e.g., as in our case, the U.S. population)~\cite{goodman2013data, walters2018mechanical}.
While MTurk is one way to collect online users' opinions, the gathered data may not be extended to the general population.

Therefore, we conducted a similar experiment with Qualtrics, a research firm that recruits respondents based on a set of demographic factors to deal with sampling biases and obtain a representative sample of the population. To match our initial study on the American user base, our new representative sample ($N$ =164) consists of U.S. residents representing gender, age, and region distributions across the United States.

The experiment had to be re-designed to fit the Qualtrics survey platform. We aimed to repeat the study to gain similar samples for each experimental condition, as in the MTurk experiment. Nevertheless, the visual cards had a different look-and-feel to survey participants, and the final counts of respondents were different from the MTurk experiment. To account for such differences, we do not compare the exact pre-stance and post-stance levels, but we analyze trends found in both MTurk and Qualitrics samples. For instance, the Spearman's correlation coefficient between both samples is 0.855 ($P$\textless0.001) and 0.664 ($P$\textless0.05) for pre-stance and post-stance, respectively. This trend confirms that the ranking of support towards AI and robot rights is correlated across the two platforms.

Responses were also divided into five bins originating from the 5-pt Likert scale presented to the participants. Therefore, we calculated the intersection between the normalized response distribution of both samples for each addressed right. If the intersection of two histograms reports a value of 1, they are the same. On the contrary, an intersection of value 0 indicates that the histograms do not have any similarity. The pre-stance distributions reported intersections of over 0.749, while post-stance distributions indicate intersection values higher than 0.763 across all rights. Table~\ref{tab:intersection} shows intersection values for each right regarding pre and post-stance response distributions.

\begin{table}[ht]
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{l|rr}
    \toprule
        \textbf{Right} & \textbf{Pre-Stance} ($\mu_{pre}$) & \textbf{Post-Stance} ($\mu_{post}$)\\
        \midrule
        Assets & 0.749 & 0.802\\
        Life & 0.762 & 0.772\\
        Contracts & 0.755 & 0.773\\
        Sue & 0.780 & 0.796\\
        Occupation & 0.776 & 0.775\\
        Nationality & 0.767 & 0.808\\
        Remuneration & 0.841 & 0.805\\
        Privacy & 0.842 & 0.899\\
        Copyright & 0.775 & 0.803\\
        Speech & 0.820 & 0.762\\
        Cruel & 0.881 & 0.847\\
        \hline
        Overall & 0.763 & 0.825\\
    \bottomrule
    \end{tabular}
    \caption{Intersections between the normalized pre-stance and post-stance distributions for MTurk and Qualtrics samples. An intersection value of 1 indicates an equal response distribution between both samples, whereas a value of 0 reveals completely different distributions.}
    \label{tab:intersection}
\end{table}

The high correlation seen in the MTurk and Qualitrics survey results suggests that the two samples' responses are similar. While the level of support might change to some extent for individual rights, the overall perceptions of AI and robot rights and the degree to which people favor or disfavor certain rights are similar.
\subsection{Rights Related to Legal Domains}

The rights to sue and be sued, to hold assets, to enter contracts, and to grant copyright, for instance, are most relevant in the context of legal systems.

\subsubsection{Right to Sue and Be Sued}

While the participants are initially against allowing AI and robots to sue and be sued ($\mu_{pre}$=-0.83), interventions could modify people's perceptions ($g$=0.209, $\mu_{sc}$=0.283, $\mu_{post}$=-0.548). Artificial persons taking part in lawsuits are common, and after providing more information---particularly the non-human design that explicitly mentioned corporations could sue and be sued---contributed to a more supportive position towards this right.
The stance was dependent on how the right was phrased. When the right was introduced indirectly (e.g., ``Someone should be able to sue and be sued by robots for injuries and damages''), the participants demonstrated a higher level of support ($g_{pre}$=0.197, $g_{post}$=0.166) than when it was articulated explicitly.
The respondents were marginally more supportive of granting this right to AI compared to robots ($g_{pre}$=0.183, $g_{post}$=0.117). The same positive effect is found on the level of autonomy; fully autonomous AI and robots are seen as more worthy of the right than when autonomy was not emphasized ($g_{pre}$=0.135, $g_{post}$=0.140).

\subsubsection{Right to Hold Assets}

The participants are initially opposed to granting assets to AI and robots ($\mu_{pre}$=-0.980); our interventions are moderately successful in modifying people's perception ($g$=0.252, $\mu_{sc}$=0.322, $\mu_{post}$=-0.658). The initial support towards the right to hold assets was also dependent on how the right was phrased. The participants reported a more supportive pre-stance ($g_{pre}$\textgreater0.157) whenever the right was introduced indirectly (e.g., ``assets can be possessed by robots'') rather than directly or explicitly.

\subsubsection{Right to Enter Contracts}

Participants are mostly opposed to granting this right to electronic agents ($\mu_{pre}$=-0.863). Similarly to the case of the rights previously discussed, people's perception was somewhat influenced by the interventions ($g$=0.222, $\mu_{sc}$=0.292, $\mu_{post}$=-0.566). The non-human intervention achieved notable success in terms of stance-change ($g$=0.442, $\mu_{sc}$=0.582); we posit that this effect was partially caused by the fact that the right to enter contracts was explicitly introduced as a right of corporations in the proposed non-human intervention. Similarly to the other rights associated with the relation of an entity with the legal system, the right to enter contracts was more supported by the participants ($g_{pre}$\textgreater0.462, $g_{post}$\textgreater0.164) when articulated indirectly (e.g., ``Valid contracts can have robots as parties'').

\subsubsection{Right Granted Under Copyright Law}

The participants are not extremely contrary to granting the rights of an original work to AI and robots ($\mu_{pre}$=-0.392). Interventions were also marginally successful in modifying people's perception of the issue ($g$=0.099, $\mu_{sc}$=0.139, $\mu_{post}$=-0.253). In particular, the non-human intervention was extremely effective, almost resulting in a more supportive attitude ($\max$ $\mu_{post}$=-0.026). The form in which the right was introduced to the participants again influenced their perception. Unlike the other previously discussed rights, explicit mentions (e.g., ``Robots should have the rights granted under copyright law'') resulted in a more positive pre-stance towards the right ($g_{pre}$\textgreater0.184). The level of autonomy of the electronic agent again influenced the participants' post-stance; emphasizing full autonomy led to a more supportive position ($g_{post}$=0.154).

\subsection{Rights Related to Societal Domains}

Some of the proposed rights are most relevant in the context of social interactions, such as the rights to freedom of speech, to a nationality, to choose occupation freely, and to remuneration.

\subsubsection{Right to Freedom of Speech}

The participants have shown not to be extremely contrary to the idea of granting freedom of speech to AI and robots ($\mu_{pre}$=-0.391). The effect of stance-change was similar across interventions, and the maximum post-stance was close to zero ($g$=0.152, $\mu_{sc}$=0.212, $\mu_{post}$=-0.180; $\max$ $\mu_{post}$=-0.092), indicating that people are marginally negative or nearly neutral towards the right to freedom of speech to AI and robots upon an intervention. However, we note there might be sampling bias in that all participants are residents of the US, a country where such a right is widely supported. People's pre-stance was influenced by how the right was articulated. Explicit phrasing (e.g., ``Robot should have the right to freedom of speech'') led to a lower degree of support ($g_{pre}$\textless-0.184). Post-stance, on the other hand, was influenced by how the agent was introduced in terms of autonomy; explicitly introducing full autonomy led to a higher post-stance upon intervention ($g_{post}$=0.130).

\subsubsection{Right to a Nationality}
The participants are initially contrary to the idea of granting nationality to electronic agents ($\mu_{pre}$=-0.807). Interventions could incur a close to moderate level of stance change ($g$=0.223, $\mu_{sc}$=0.294, $\mu_{post}$=-0.513). Pre-stance towards this right depended on how it was phrased; explicitly mentioning it (e.g., ``Robots should have the right to a nationality'') led to the smallest level of support ($g_{pre}$\textless-0.065) compared to other kinds of phrasing.

\subsubsection{Right to Choose Occupation Freely}
The respondents do not think that AI and robots should choose their occupations ($\mu_{pre}$=-0.739). Interventions were also not highly effective in changing people's perception of the issue ($g$=0.150, $\mu_{sc}$=0.197, $\mu_{post}$=-0.543). We posit that participants imagine AI and robots as specialized workers, an image not that far from the current situation. Electronic agents are often built for a designated set of functions, and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is nowhere close to being developed~\cite{bostrom2017superintelligence, aginowhereclose}. Once more, the phrasing type impacted the responses; an indirect introduction (e.g., ``No one can coerce AI programs to complete any work'') caused a higher level of support for both pre-stance and post-stance ($g_{pre}$\textgreater0.360, $g_{post}$\textgreater0.105).

\subsubsection{Right to Remuneration}
The participants are largely contrary to the idea of paying robots and AI for their work ($\mu_{pre}$=-0.801). Interventions were however somewhat successful and led to positive stance-changes ($g$=0.222, $\mu_{sc}$=0.293, $\mu_{post}$=-0.508).  Phrasing only impacted responses related to pre-stance towards the right; explicit phrasing (e.g., ``Robots should have the right to receive payment for their work'') was the most supported ($g_{pre}$\textgreater0.075). We hypothesize that compensating an electronic agent for its work is unreasonable because of the initial investment needed for the AI or robot when acquiring an electronic entity. They are a property that can be bought, and participants do not wish to bear any extra cost.

\subsection{Rights Related to Private Domains}
Finally, the right to privacy, to life, and against cruel treatment and punishment are most relevantly associated with the \textit{``private''} boundary of an electronic agent.

\subsubsection{Right to Privacy}

The participants are mostly contrary to the idea of granting the right to privacy to AI and robots ($\mu_{pre}$=-0.577). The proposed intervention also reported a marginal effect ($g$=0.124, $\mu_{sc}$=0.169, $\mu_{post}$=-0.408), showing that people do not see the privacy of AI and robots as necessary. This is in line with the current GDPR that requires complete transparency of systems (and hence no privacy for AI and robots).
Again, the participants' pre-stance was subject to how the right was phrased; explicit phrasing (e.g., ``Robots should have the right to privacy'') led to a lesser degree of support towards the right ($g_{pre}$\textless-0.182).

\subsubsection{Right to Life}

The participants are strongly against preserving the ``life'' of a robot or AI ($\mu_{pre}$=-0.964), yet alone interventions had a close to moderate effect ($g$=0.235, $\mu_{sc}$=0.296, $\mu_{post}$=-0.668). Pre-stance towards the right to life of AI and robots showed a significantly lower average value ($g_{pre}$\textless-0.213) if the right was indirectly introduced (e.g., ``No one should be able to turn off or kill robots'') rather than directly or explicitly.
Additionally, explicitly introducing full autonomy led to significantly higher post-stance values towards electronic agent's right to life ($g_{post}$=0.160).

\subsubsection{Right Against Cruel Punishment and Treatment}

Pre-stance results indicate that the participants are initially supportive of protecting automated agents against cruelty ($\mu_{pre}$=0.171). None of our proposed interventions were significant in changing people's perception regarding this right ($g$=0.028, $\mu_{sc}$=0.038, $\mu_{post}$=0.209), likely because there is little room to shift even more positively. This finding resonates with anecdotal evidence presented by Darling~\cite{darling2016extending, darling2015s}, which found humans feeling pity for robots or refusing to ``hurt'' them. Darling proposed to create legal protections against the harsh treatment of robots, not for the sake of robotic agents but as a form of discouraging cruel behavior to be transferred to human interactions. Whenever the right against cruel treatment was introduced explicitly (e.g., ``Robots should have the right against cruel punishment or treatment''), however, the participants reported a more substantial degree of rejection to the proposal ($g_{pre}$\textless-0.389, $g_{post}$\textless-0.177). We thus posit that the participants agree that cruelty against AI and robots should not be accepted; granting a right to protect them, however, is not seen as a reasonable alternative.

\section*{Things to do:}
\begin{itemize}
    \item Review everything
    \item Objective writing style
    \item Add "first impressions" in Introduction
\end{itemize}
\fi

\section{Introduction}

\input{content/intro.tex}

\section{Background}

\input{content/background.tex}

\section{Methodology}

\input{content/methodology.tex}

\section{Stance Towards AI and Robot Rights}

\input{content/overall.tex}

\section{Discussion on AI and Robot Rights}

\input{content/rights.tex}

\section{Implications}

\input{content/implications.tex}

\section{Future Work}

\input{content/future_work}

\section{Concluding Remarks}

\input{content/conclusion.tex}

\section*{Acknowledgments}

G. Lima, C. Kim, S. Ryu and M. Cha were supported by the Institute for Basic Science (IBS-R029-C2) and Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation Korea of Korea (No. NRF-2017R1E1A1A01076400). C. Jeon was supported by the framework of international cooperation program managed by National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2018K1A3A7A03089893).

\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}