This came to mind when I was thinking about the short story "Evidence" by Isaac Asimov. I highly recommend it, and there's a plot summary here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(short_story) But here's the spoiler-free, TL;DR version:
Stephen Byerley, a popular District Attorney, is running for mayor of a major American city. His opponent accuses him of secretly being a robot. He visits the chief robot scientists at U.S. Robotics and asks them how one might go about proving that Byerley is a humanoid robot. The head scientist lady says that if they can catch him violating one of the three laws of robotics, then that'll prove he's human. For reference, Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics Are:
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. Robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
However, if Byerley obeys all three laws, that
won't prove that he's a robot. He might be a robot, or he might just be a really great guy. The story goes on with Byerley's opponent trying various tricks to prove to the people that Byerley is a robot and Byerley using the smear attack to his advantage by remaining ambiguous as to whether or not he's a human or a robot and using the discussion to raise issues of privacy and civil rights. Another story by Asimov reveals that Byerley eventually became basically president of Earth.
Anyways, at one point it's postulated that a robot who must follow the Three Laws would actually be the most fair and just ruler imaginable.
For instance, you might think that the second law would require a robot president to obey any suggestion from a corrupt lobbyist to back their legislation, but the first law means he could only do so if that proposal would actually be in the best interest of the country and cause the least harm to the fewest people.
Thoughts? Agree or disagree?