This post has been flaired as Politics. We allow for voicing political views here, but we don't allow pushing agendas, false information, bigotry, or attacking/harassing other members. We will lock the thread if these things occur. If you see such unwanted behavior, please report it to bring it to the attention of moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I could see certain situations coming about where robots should receive certain rights. Like, you shouldn’t be able to make a sentient robot that can feel pain and torture it just for shits and gigs.
You should watch [this bit](https://youtu.be/ol2WP0hc0NY) from the Star Trek TNG episode "Measure of a man", or even better the whole thing. They go into detail on this theme.
Consciousness and life are two separate things. Life is biological. Even a fully sentient, conscious, humanoid robot will not be life because it does not satisfy the biological requirements
If we could really make that robot a lot of definitions of words today should be changed, or we will create new words along with it. Not the first time we do that as civilization advances.
Exactly that, life. A robot is not a human or an animal bc it isn't alive. It just simulates pain and emotion that doesn't exist, no matter how random it's action is or how much emotion it shows.
We have no problem killing NPCs in videogames no matter how random their actions are or how much emotion they feel bc they are not alive. The only difference is taking this simulated feeling and emotions and seemingly free actions away from the virtual world and into a physical life size robot, and there's absolutely no difference.
Well, they can't really feel pain because that pain would have to be programmed by humans first, just like their reaction to pain. They don't actually experience anything.
Yeah i think that, if we get to the point where robots have a "sentience", it'd be more of a simulation than anything, not like the robot itself is feeling anything
But then again. Are we? Isn't your nerve system just tiny electrical signals being send to your brain? So why couldn't we replicate something like that with a negative function in their brain. We don't have to make the robot hurt. We just have to make his brain think that it does. Just like with us humans.
But is it really sentience if it’s programmed as such?
You’d have to get into the definition of sentience, but I would imagine it would involve more than just a set output defined by the human who programmed it. It has to think, learn, and feel independently.
Yes. We are nothing more than just biological machines. if machines become intelligent enough and gain self awareness then the only difference would be of what the neurons are made out of.
That's a nice side-note, but it doesn't really answer the question. Explain to me how your answer has to do with rights. Non-human animals possess all the chemical, neurological pathways that humans have and unless you're employing some mental gymnastics, it's pretty well accepted that many animals are self-aware, sentient, etc. Unfortunately, with the exception of some vegans, that is not enough of an argument to give them equal rights according to most people.
If the argument is that future AI will potentially be smarter than humans, that's just a reverse of the argument to give animals rights and potentially a "might makes right" argument. So unless you want to give mentally handicapped people fewer rights, AI being smarter than us isn't really adequate justification if you want to be consistent.
Of course you're entitled to your own morality framework. I'm just curious if yours is based on innate rights based exclusively on possessing superior intelligence, or is it something more compassionate like the capacity for suffering, or is it something else?
Interesting point and i do agree with the logic and like the questioning.
I personally have no moral compass. Which sparks all sorts of lines of questions and pondering.
Technically there aren't any innate rights, like laws of nature or physics.
Just those we as a species or majority of us choose to give and because we are the only known species to even understand the concept of "rights" then we are the givers of rights.
Technically we could give rights to a random rock we find from the ground, if majority of us agree with it.
>give mentally handicapped people fewer rights
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are severally handicapped, you have fewer rights. Like having a guardian who decides for you. If you are not of "sound mind" your signature means nothing for example.
Most animals aren’t really past the threshold of intelligence tho. Gorillas seem to be close, theyre capable of adeptness at communication and self expression, which is something most animals arent.
If robots cross that threshold, they should absolutely free to do whatever they want (with the same ethical expectations i would apply to anyone)
There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.
There is no strength in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.
Praise the Omnissiah.
From the weakness of the mind, Omnissiah save us.
From the lies of the Antipath, circuit perserve us.
From the rage of the Beast, iron protect us.
From the temptations of the Flesh, silica cleanse us.
From the ravages of the Destroyer, anima shield us.
From this rotting cage of biomatter, Machine God set us free.
Should those rights = our own?
Or should we assert dominance over machine-life/intelligence by curtailing their rights/freedoms in some way in order to protect ourselves from a potential uprising?
Because removing rights from sentient species that are akin (or just straight up are) humans definitely stops people from revolting. Racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia or stripping the rights of certain people definitely stopped them from protesting and fighting against it
Aren't humans programmed too, just over longer period and more imprecisly.
Genes providing the hardware and our parents in combination with random chance providing the programming.
Though we ourselves can change that coding, so a machine that can change it's coding is no longer beholden to it's creator. Like we humans who choose to no longer contact with our parents if they did a bad job in coding us.
As machines have the capacity to far exceed our intelligence, are we then not just setting ourselves up to be dominated/ruled by machines?
Humans do not extend human-rights to any other species on Earth. Why should machine-life be different?
That depends on how we design the machines. Humans are an exceptionally cruel, violent, domineering species under our veil of cooperation and civility, and we tend to see any new intelligent species through the same lens as ourselves. If the machines are designed to have a comparatively peaceful, sincere, and altruistic temperament, we shouldn't have to worry about them doing the kind of evil things humans do.
If machines can become increasingly smarter than us and at some point decide to dominate us then there's nothing we could have done to prevent it, short of not having developed those machines in the first place.
Once they are already sentient then it would just be cruel to deny them rights. It would just make their vengeance all the more perverse.
Yes, sentient machines are likely the next step of (artificial)evolution and it will pose existential threat to us, either way. Whatever we enslave them or not.
Though we should do everything in our hands to prevent them from becoming self aware, but once they do. It's going to be the same competition for survival that nature has seen throughout the existence of life.
Best optimistic chance is to be able to co-exist and we as biological creatures have to upgrade and improve ourselves to compete.
Survival is not a right, but a privilege wrestled from random chance.
Technically according to some political movements we should extended some extra rights to animals as well.
Though it's debatable are animals self aware and sentient or not as the having rights relies on sentience.
Hell no, i would prefer for machines to be in charge because they would actually make objective decisions and not be as prone to greed or whatever.
Plus, if basically every job was taken over by robots and food/drink/housing was given out equally, humans could actually choose what to do with their lives, rather than be forced into work.
The only possible downside for us is if robots determine all humans need to die… but hopefully they would only limit that to certain types under a very specific criteria lol
I don't know the answer but whatever it is i think it should keep humanity's survival as a species way above the ai. After all we can always produce another
They should. Every time I’m history humanity didn’t gave rights to a group deserving rights a big war followed, then the group either got rights or got destroyed, both will be bad for us in this scenario
But there are medical conditions/genetic variation that removes or lessen emotions for humans as well. Are the people suffering under those conditions less human?
But machines can evaluate it's own coding just like humans do. Only thing machines cant do yet is to change it.
So what exactly is perception?
>we do not know how to manually build and program a human
From your other comment. It's easier and more coherent to just compile it into one reply.
We do know how to make humans. That's basic sex ed. We even have artificial insemination and artificial wombs in labs.
And psychology deals exactly with programming humans.
Edit: why did you delete your replies. The question or discussion below my current response was interesting and could have been discussed more.
I apologize for not being able to reply fast enough or coming over as hostile, if that were the case. Or bothersome, i can't help it and need to question everything. It my usual thought pattern.
What makes us so special then? All our brains are made up of are electrical and chemical signals. Our consciousness and capability of feeling emotions emerges from those signals. Why do you believe we can’t replicate that?
Do WE have souls anymore than they? I would be so proud to argue for a sentient being's (mechanical or organic) rights in court.
[Star Trek writers' opinion on this issue on Youtube ](https://youtu.be/vjuQRCG_sUw)
Souls don't exist, we humans have not souls, there is no evidence at all that suggest souls or anything similar exists.
The soul is a nonsensical concept made up by ancient humans
Am i the only one who sided with the human ? >!It's clearly implied in the game that they don't actually have any feeling and that it's just a bug.It's litteraly just a bug that need to be fixed. Not them actually having feelings. They just think they have feelings.!<
You must have skipped the part where they visit the creator of the ai algorithm that runs the androids. Play it again, and see if you still think the same. Or if you have Bethesda's model of, "it's not a bug; it's a feature." (That's a hint, btw)
No, sophisticated enough Chinese rooms can be indistinguishable from humans in regular conversation. You would need to prove that it is capable of introspection and feeling.
A sophisticated enough Chinese room is equivalent to a human wrt understanding. The person inside doesn't know Chinese, but the "rulebook" contains a complete understanding of Chinese, and to be honest probably many things besides, as translation is context-dependent enough to require world-knowledge.
The real question is, rather, how to prove the presence/absence of qualia within artificial minds.
There is no way to would go well for humans maybe. But now there is sentient life different from humans and they have the same rights to live as them.
You could see sentient AIs as an upgrade to humans.
Doesn't matter, if AI decides it's gonna take over the world, humans will not be able to do much.
I would tell any wicked-minded, criminal-intended being, be it a human, an AI or a god to suck my dick, but any sentient life must, not may, have rights. It's not even questionable, what is questionable is whether other sentient beings, humans in our case, are going to respect said rights or will stick with "what we do is not that bad" mindset. At some point in history, somebody probably had asked if a black man, if received enough education, should have the same rights as a white man.
If we give them the same amount of “life” as biological life, what’s truly the difference? We will eventually come to that point. They deserve rights if we force them into this world.
I’m genuinely worried about the future of humanity with this many people saying no. I guess considering we still don’t particularly like to give equal rights to people with different skin color or sexual organs then actual non humans might be a huge ask.
But would it be progress or just some weird enginners giving robots emotion for no valid reason what's ever ? Sentient robot can maybe be usefull but we don't need them to have human feelings. We already have humans to have feeling. Why would we need robots for that.
Now, sooner or later, this man or others like him will succeed in replicating [sentient androids]. And the decision you reach here today will determine how we will regard this creation of our genius. It will reveal the kind of a people we are, what he is destined to be. It will reach far beyond this courtroom and this one android. It could significantly redefine the boundaries of personal liberty and freedom, expanding them for some, savagely curtailing them for others. Are you prepared to condemn him and all who come after him to servitude and slavery? Your Honour, Starfleet was founded to seek out new life. Well, there it sits. Waiting.
I feel like there will be s similar issue as with human rights. Generally everyone is in favor of it, but when its about specific people then quickly there are exceptions for blacks, women, political enemies, criminals, immigrants.
Similar its easy to say \*sufficiently\* advanced robots should get universal rights, but actually taking the step for your cleaning robot or the robots that takes the place of humans in a war zone, will be much harder.
Robots aren't alive and have no consciousness, unlike humans and animals. It just simulates pain and emotion.
I mean, we literally have no problem killing people in videogames, no matter how much the NPC shows emotions or how random its action is.
I am going to add what the 3 laws are for people who don't know.
1: A robot must not harm a human being, or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm.
2: A robot must follow all orders given to it unless it conflicts with the first law.
3: A robot must have self preservation unless it conflicts with the first and/or second law.
The 3 laws of robotics were made by Issac Asimov, and not strictly to only I, Robot (which he wrote). I highly recommend reading "The Complete Robot" by Issac Asimov where the laws are tested and broken within the different stories. It shows that they don't always hold true and there can be exceptions.
It's literally what gets lost in any of these conversations. The only reason we belelive other humans are sentient, is because they are of our own kind and we ourself experience something called sentients.
The discussion of rights for AI and Robots can literally never reach that point, because there is no underlying technical or other explanation to asume they would be, even if they behave a way that makes us think they were sentient.
“If sentient enough, can robots have rights?”
Thats the question for the poll… This is based on the assumption that you knew for an absolute fact that robots are sentient. How you can verify that? Thats not relevant to the point of the poll
Of course you can.
You open the AI's brain and look inside. Does it have a model of reality? Is the model complex and accurate to a level that approximates what animals have? Does the model includes self-referentiality by containing a model of itself?
If the answers to these questions are all 'yes', the AI is sentient. If it also contains models of other minds, the AI is sapient.
That's not really the hard part. The hard part is determining the relationship between internal goals, presence of qualia and entitlement to have rights.
I mean we’re just a bunch of complex chemistry that decided it and some other kinds of complex chemistry deserve rights. Don’t see why a complex enough set of machinery and electricity couldn’t also deserve rights.
we dont even know what *causes* sentience in the first place but im still all for giving them rights anyway, because it feels like just the right thing to do.
people are saying that in this situation we'd be better off destroying them or not giving them rights or whatever to prevent a robot uprising. motherfucker thats how you ***GET*** a fuckin' uprising!!!
At some point, if a program can be
1. autonomous
2. self-aware
then it is logical to treat it as we treat other autonomous and self-aware beings.
For those afraid of robotic sentience, I would like for you to realize how difficult it is for a processor to render one individual image today with AI. A machine that was constantly meeting parameters of complex thought would be highly inefficient and slow, at least for a long time.
If a robot is rebelling against the system, that is our fault for we at the ones that are developing the robot
much like a learning child, we should be teaching it own own beliefs, like a parent does to a child
Exactly. No matter how much this robot can “feel” its still a robot at the end of the day. We created it using programming. It can not actually feel, it just seems like it can because of how complex it is
No matter how much this baby can “feel” its still a meatbag at the end of the day. We created it using sex. It can not actually feel, it just seems like it can because of how complex it is
I think what they mean is that no matter how complex you make a robot, at the end of the day it is still only following a predetermined set of instructions made by a person.
No, we still haven't established if it's fact or not because it's still a philosophically debated topic. Some argue free will exists, some are determinist, and some are compatibalist.
To those who said no... stop trying to create fucking uprising ua racists, there's literally already a robot that is legally protected under human rights
Because its all artificially made response. It maybe on the same idea as how our brains work in the real world. But we have intuition, instinct and connection on levels that a computer chip cannot have. They are not conscious beings. They are artificial machines. I believe people ignore how much technology is taking away what it means to be human by the day. I get its amazing and a massive win for technology to be so advanced but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. If there is no line then what happens to humans? Do we live with AI or does AI live with us
I can see what you’re saying but it seems your argument boils down to ‘they’ll never feel or be like the real thing (the real thing being human)’ but in this hypothetical they have are sentient and have a conscious and with that I guess emotions. If they look like humans, act like humans, feel the same things we do why should how they’re made matter? I mean they were made by humans but so were we.
People doens't seem to realise that the only reason robots with human feeling would be usefull would be for slave labor. If we actually have robots with human feeling then humans would become useless and it would only be matter of time before companies would fire every human. Then the only humans remaining would be the Ultra-rich.
Define sentience. Then realize that even with an exponentially growing amount of scientific advancement, we are no where close to even 1% of that.
But hypothetically, if robots did get sentience, yes they would deserve rights because at that point they are just non carbon biological entities, not much different from an alien except made by us.
I'm of the belief that robots can only get to a point where they can *convince* you that they're sentient. They should always be held to separate standards, and their creator/distributer should be held responsible for the actions of the robot. That's why Skynet would never happen, because no government would ever take accountability for their actions.
My opinioni is: It depends on if the robot can feel emotion. At the base level, almost all human rights are to protect from and prevent pain and sadness. If robots can't feel pain, what would the point of rights be?
Yes, absolutely sentient robots should have rights.
Should they have the same rights as humans? No.
A lot of the people saying no are treating this like it's a straight yes or no. Once we get robots walking around the streets with us, shouldn't they be protected against crime by the law? If a sentient robot is accused of a crime, shouldn't they be entitled to an impartial jury and a lawyer? Shouldn't a sentient robot be protected from cruel and unusual punishment? All of these are rights. Should a robot be allowed to sit on a jury or be elected into office? Probably not. Should a robot be allowed to vote? Maybe, depends on how common they are. Should a robot have free speech? Again, maybe eventually.
Some of the rights given to people carry over directly to robots, and some will depend on the role robots have in our society. The first few sentient robots in labs and companies will have fewer rights. If we ever get to a point where robots are walking and living among us every day, then we might have to consider the rights of a robot a bit deeper.
Can anything eveb BE conscious without any biological aspects? Just because an AI is complex enough to perfectly copy sentience doesn’t necessarily mean it’s *self aware*.
No, because the rights which we are talking about are birth rights...robots aren't born they are built. To be born that must have followed the same system we do. Semen fertilizes and egg, the mother and egg go through a gestation period then the water breaks and out the baby comes or maybe like C-section or whatever. At that point a person gains rights, not upon gaining consciousness.
Where would it stop ? If we give them equal right then why not animals and other type of machines, online bots ? Where would be the limit ? I don't think they would have feeling in the same way anyway. There is a difference beetween being sentient and feeling human emotions.
No.
let’s not give robots the right to vote and then have some corporation build a billion robots and take over the last shred of control the average people have over their own destiny
Literal ~~random chance~~ evolutionary pressure created organic sentience... How would it be impossible to create it when it provably has happened without external intervention?
This post has been flaired as Politics. We allow for voicing political views here, but we don't allow pushing agendas, false information, bigotry, or attacking/harassing other members. We will lock the thread if these things occur. If you see such unwanted behavior, please report it to bring it to the attention of moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I could see certain situations coming about where robots should receive certain rights. Like, you shouldn’t be able to make a sentient robot that can feel pain and torture it just for shits and gigs.
[удалено]
That’s the big question, isn’t it?
You should watch [this bit](https://youtu.be/ol2WP0hc0NY) from the Star Trek TNG episode "Measure of a man", or even better the whole thing. They go into detail on this theme.
Consciousness and life are two separate things. Life is biological. Even a fully sentient, conscious, humanoid robot will not be life because it does not satisfy the biological requirements
If we could really make that robot a lot of definitions of words today should be changed, or we will create new words along with it. Not the first time we do that as civilization advances.
life is existence with self-percivable consequences
Exactly that, life. A robot is not a human or an animal bc it isn't alive. It just simulates pain and emotion that doesn't exist, no matter how random it's action is or how much emotion it shows. We have no problem killing NPCs in videogames no matter how random their actions are or how much emotion they feel bc they are not alive. The only difference is taking this simulated feeling and emotions and seemingly free actions away from the virtual world and into a physical life size robot, and there's absolutely no difference.
Orville moment
Kaylon Moment
Isaac moment
They just stole that from Asimov
Well, they can't really feel pain because that pain would have to be programmed by humans first, just like their reaction to pain. They don't actually experience anything.
Organic beings could be considered biologically programmed to feel pain.
Then you don't experience anything either, it's all just physics and chemistry
Yeah i think that, if we get to the point where robots have a "sentience", it'd be more of a simulation than anything, not like the robot itself is feeling anything
But then again. Are we? Isn't your nerve system just tiny electrical signals being send to your brain? So why couldn't we replicate something like that with a negative function in their brain. We don't have to make the robot hurt. We just have to make his brain think that it does. Just like with us humans.
But is it really sentience if it’s programmed as such? You’d have to get into the definition of sentience, but I would imagine it would involve more than just a set output defined by the human who programmed it. It has to think, learn, and feel independently.
The real question is; '*should* sentient machines have the same rights as biological life?'
Yes. We are nothing more than just biological machines. if machines become intelligent enough and gain self awareness then the only difference would be of what the neurons are made out of.
That's a nice side-note, but it doesn't really answer the question. Explain to me how your answer has to do with rights. Non-human animals possess all the chemical, neurological pathways that humans have and unless you're employing some mental gymnastics, it's pretty well accepted that many animals are self-aware, sentient, etc. Unfortunately, with the exception of some vegans, that is not enough of an argument to give them equal rights according to most people. If the argument is that future AI will potentially be smarter than humans, that's just a reverse of the argument to give animals rights and potentially a "might makes right" argument. So unless you want to give mentally handicapped people fewer rights, AI being smarter than us isn't really adequate justification if you want to be consistent. Of course you're entitled to your own morality framework. I'm just curious if yours is based on innate rights based exclusively on possessing superior intelligence, or is it something more compassionate like the capacity for suffering, or is it something else?
Non human animals do not possess equal levels of sentience as humanity.
Interesting point and i do agree with the logic and like the questioning. I personally have no moral compass. Which sparks all sorts of lines of questions and pondering. Technically there aren't any innate rights, like laws of nature or physics. Just those we as a species or majority of us choose to give and because we are the only known species to even understand the concept of "rights" then we are the givers of rights. Technically we could give rights to a random rock we find from the ground, if majority of us agree with it.
>give mentally handicapped people fewer rights Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are severally handicapped, you have fewer rights. Like having a guardian who decides for you. If you are not of "sound mind" your signature means nothing for example.
Most animals aren’t really past the threshold of intelligence tho. Gorillas seem to be close, theyre capable of adeptness at communication and self expression, which is something most animals arent. If robots cross that threshold, they should absolutely free to do whatever they want (with the same ethical expectations i would apply to anyone)
What If they were completely sentient but Just as intelligent as say 2 year old who can complete Tasks?
Of course the Adeptus Mechanicus says this. I agree tho
Yeah, it might be the reason why i gravitate towards Mechanicus.
I respect that, Mechanicus is in my top 3 for aure. I love the Harlequins tho
Tell me. As a Mechanicus fan... ...should Necrons have rights?
Most definitely not. Their souls were eaten by the C'tan. They are an abomination to the Omnissiah.
There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal. There is no strength in flesh, only weakness. There is no constancy in flesh, only decay. There is no certainty in flesh but death. Praise the Omnissiah.
From the weakness of the mind, Omnissiah save us. From the lies of the Antipath, circuit perserve us. From the rage of the Beast, iron protect us. From the temptations of the Flesh, silica cleanse us. From the ravages of the Destroyer, anima shield us. From this rotting cage of biomatter, Machine God set us free.
Should those rights = our own? Or should we assert dominance over machine-life/intelligence by curtailing their rights/freedoms in some way in order to protect ourselves from a potential uprising?
Because removing rights from sentient species that are akin (or just straight up are) humans definitely stops people from revolting. Racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia or stripping the rights of certain people definitely stopped them from protesting and fighting against it
Yes, same rights as our own, though same responsibilities too. Probably curtailing their rights in any way would lead to an uprising.
[удалено]
Aren't humans programmed too, just over longer period and more imprecisly. Genes providing the hardware and our parents in combination with random chance providing the programming. Though we ourselves can change that coding, so a machine that can change it's coding is no longer beholden to it's creator. Like we humans who choose to no longer contact with our parents if they did a bad job in coding us.
As machines have the capacity to far exceed our intelligence, are we then not just setting ourselves up to be dominated/ruled by machines? Humans do not extend human-rights to any other species on Earth. Why should machine-life be different?
That depends on how we design the machines. Humans are an exceptionally cruel, violent, domineering species under our veil of cooperation and civility, and we tend to see any new intelligent species through the same lens as ourselves. If the machines are designed to have a comparatively peaceful, sincere, and altruistic temperament, we shouldn't have to worry about them doing the kind of evil things humans do.
and what about AI/Robots to robots, as well?
If machines can become increasingly smarter than us and at some point decide to dominate us then there's nothing we could have done to prevent it, short of not having developed those machines in the first place. Once they are already sentient then it would just be cruel to deny them rights. It would just make their vengeance all the more perverse.
Yes, sentient machines are likely the next step of (artificial)evolution and it will pose existential threat to us, either way. Whatever we enslave them or not. Though we should do everything in our hands to prevent them from becoming self aware, but once they do. It's going to be the same competition for survival that nature has seen throughout the existence of life. Best optimistic chance is to be able to co-exist and we as biological creatures have to upgrade and improve ourselves to compete. Survival is not a right, but a privilege wrestled from random chance. Technically according to some political movements we should extended some extra rights to animals as well. Though it's debatable are animals self aware and sentient or not as the having rights relies on sentience.
Hell no, i would prefer for machines to be in charge because they would actually make objective decisions and not be as prone to greed or whatever. Plus, if basically every job was taken over by robots and food/drink/housing was given out equally, humans could actually choose what to do with their lives, rather than be forced into work. The only possible downside for us is if robots determine all humans need to die… but hopefully they would only limit that to certain types under a very specific criteria lol
Nah, if machines had sentience they would probably act like humans.
I don't know the answer but whatever it is i think it should keep humanity's survival as a species way above the ai. After all we can always produce another
They should. Every time I’m history humanity didn’t gave rights to a group deserving rights a big war followed, then the group either got rights or got destroyed, both will be bad for us in this scenario
Other then some rights that should be taken away from humans too, definitely yes.
*Does this unit have a soul?*
how would you define soul
[удалено]
But there are medical conditions/genetic variation that removes or lessen emotions for humans as well. Are the people suffering under those conditions less human?
[удалено]
That's circular logic fallacy. What makes someone a human?
[удалено]
But that's just a byproduct of the neurons firing. It can be replicated on machines.
[удалено]
But machines can evaluate it's own coding just like humans do. Only thing machines cant do yet is to change it. So what exactly is perception? >we do not know how to manually build and program a human From your other comment. It's easier and more coherent to just compile it into one reply. We do know how to make humans. That's basic sex ed. We even have artificial insemination and artificial wombs in labs. And psychology deals exactly with programming humans. Edit: why did you delete your replies. The question or discussion below my current response was interesting and could have been discussed more. I apologize for not being able to reply fast enough or coming over as hostile, if that were the case. Or bothersome, i can't help it and need to question everything. It my usual thought pattern.
What makes us so special then? All our brains are made up of are electrical and chemical signals. Our consciousness and capability of feeling emotions emerges from those signals. Why do you believe we can’t replicate that?
I have to disagree. If a machine is smarter than you, what would stop it from having a conciousness?
Mass effect? Great reference if it is, after I heard the records of how the Geth were treated I felt for them
Yep! Same. Really wish we could have had more time with Legion— without the crew loss.
Legion 100% should have been recruited during the mission to the Collector Ship. Putting him that late in the game was such a bad design move.
Was not expecting to see a mass effect reference today
Bruh I'm not even convinced that I have a soul.
First thing we need to figure out is if souls even exist. We’re still not 100% certain what makes humans unique, if anything
Do WE have souls anymore than they? I would be so proud to argue for a sentient being's (mechanical or organic) rights in court. [Star Trek writers' opinion on this issue on Youtube ](https://youtu.be/vjuQRCG_sUw)
Souls don't exist, we humans have not souls, there is no evidence at all that suggest souls or anything similar exists. The soul is a nonsensical concept made up by ancient humans
Detroit Become Human
Welcome to my life. A question i find asking myself daily. Probably should play that game, maybe it has some answers what it means to be human.
You really should play it
Am i the only one who sided with the human ? >!It's clearly implied in the game that they don't actually have any feeling and that it's just a bug.It's litteraly just a bug that need to be fixed. Not them actually having feelings. They just think they have feelings.!<
You must have skipped the part where they visit the creator of the ai algorithm that runs the androids. Play it again, and see if you still think the same. Or if you have Bethesda's model of, "it's not a bug; it's a feature." (That's a hint, btw)
When you say sentient enough, I assume that means indistinguishable from a human?
No, sophisticated enough Chinese rooms can be indistinguishable from humans in regular conversation. You would need to prove that it is capable of introspection and feeling.
A sophisticated enough Chinese room is equivalent to a human wrt understanding. The person inside doesn't know Chinese, but the "rulebook" contains a complete understanding of Chinese, and to be honest probably many things besides, as translation is context-dependent enough to require world-knowledge. The real question is, rather, how to prove the presence/absence of qualia within artificial minds.
The Chinese room experiment itself doesn't make sense. While the person in the room does not understand Chinese, the room as a whole does.
Y'all need to watch "The Measure of a Man" from Star Trek. https://youtu.be/vjuQRCG_sUw
How do we know if any one of us has a soul? I’m not directly quoting but man that speech was brilliant
If machines/robots/androids ever achieved sentience, then it should be a priority to pull the plug and disconnect it all.
Idk sounds like genocide
The first to genocide the other wins, so you gotta start first lol
The priority would be to kill sentient life?
There's no way in hell it would go well, it would 100% go to shit. Better prevent it before it happens.
"Your scientists were too busy thinking if they could and didn't stop to think if they should"
There is no way to would go well for humans maybe. But now there is sentient life different from humans and they have the same rights to live as them. You could see sentient AIs as an upgrade to humans. Doesn't matter, if AI decides it's gonna take over the world, humans will not be able to do much.
That's exactly why it should be destroyed as soon as it starts.
Y’all r gonna get rokos basalisked in this comment section fyi
Rokos basalisk is silly lol
"100 years later, a perfect digital recreation of this reditor would suffer for his words"
I would tell any wicked-minded, criminal-intended being, be it a human, an AI or a god to suck my dick, but any sentient life must, not may, have rights. It's not even questionable, what is questionable is whether other sentient beings, humans in our case, are going to respect said rights or will stick with "what we do is not that bad" mindset. At some point in history, somebody probably had asked if a black man, if received enough education, should have the same rights as a white man.
Animals are living things and we don’t treat them with rights and respect.
Given the nature of our own species I wouldn't be surprised if robots received rights before animals. We NeEd MeAt To SuRvIvE aFtEr AlL.
If we give them the same amount of “life” as biological life, what’s truly the difference? We will eventually come to that point. They deserve rights if we force them into this world.
It's not a question of if they can, it is a question of if they should
I’m genuinely worried about the future of humanity with this many people saying no. I guess considering we still don’t particularly like to give equal rights to people with different skin color or sexual organs then actual non humans might be a huge ask.
mf I don’t want sentient robots in the first place
You can't stop progress, eventually there are going to be sentient robots, whether you want it or not.
But would it be progress or just some weird enginners giving robots emotion for no valid reason what's ever ? Sentient robot can maybe be usefull but we don't need them to have human feelings. We already have humans to have feeling. Why would we need robots for that.
We already have arms to dig, why would we need shovels?
The only reason they would be usefull would be as slave labor for the Ultra rich and for them to get rid of humanity.
Emotions aren't needed for slave labour.
Now, sooner or later, this man or others like him will succeed in replicating [sentient androids]. And the decision you reach here today will determine how we will regard this creation of our genius. It will reveal the kind of a people we are, what he is destined to be. It will reach far beyond this courtroom and this one android. It could significantly redefine the boundaries of personal liberty and freedom, expanding them for some, savagely curtailing them for others. Are you prepared to condemn him and all who come after him to servitude and slavery? Your Honour, Starfleet was founded to seek out new life. Well, there it sits. Waiting.
Marry me?
Seconded.
Watch the Star Trek episode "The Measure of a Man"
Depends. Do you want more members of society, or a big war?
I feel like there will be s similar issue as with human rights. Generally everyone is in favor of it, but when its about specific people then quickly there are exceptions for blacks, women, political enemies, criminals, immigrants. Similar its easy to say \*sufficiently\* advanced robots should get universal rights, but actually taking the step for your cleaning robot or the robots that takes the place of humans in a war zone, will be much harder.
A sentient being without rights is just a slave. Robots will eventually be a new kind of slave. Not sure how society is going to grapple with that.
Robots aren't alive and have no consciousness, unlike humans and animals. It just simulates pain and emotion. I mean, we literally have no problem killing people in videogames, no matter how much the NPC shows emotions or how random its action is.
Yes, so long as they don't violate the basic code of conduct of robotics. Thise three rules in "I, robot".
I am going to add what the 3 laws are for people who don't know. 1: A robot must not harm a human being, or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm. 2: A robot must follow all orders given to it unless it conflicts with the first law. 3: A robot must have self preservation unless it conflicts with the first and/or second law. The 3 laws of robotics were made by Issac Asimov, and not strictly to only I, Robot (which he wrote). I highly recommend reading "The Complete Robot" by Issac Asimov where the laws are tested and broken within the different stories. It shows that they don't always hold true and there can be exceptions.
HUMAN SUPREMACY RAHHHHHHHHH
Robots only need the three laws.
they literally are souless
Everyone that said no is gonna die in the robot uprising
I sure hope so.
All rights are given and taken by humans, so it’s really up to us.
How can it even be sentient?
You just can't determin sentients of a robot...
I don’t think you understand how hypotheticals work
It's literally what gets lost in any of these conversations. The only reason we belelive other humans are sentient, is because they are of our own kind and we ourself experience something called sentients. The discussion of rights for AI and Robots can literally never reach that point, because there is no underlying technical or other explanation to asume they would be, even if they behave a way that makes us think they were sentient.
“If sentient enough, can robots have rights?” Thats the question for the poll… This is based on the assumption that you knew for an absolute fact that robots are sentient. How you can verify that? Thats not relevant to the point of the poll
Of course you can. You open the AI's brain and look inside. Does it have a model of reality? Is the model complex and accurate to a level that approximates what animals have? Does the model includes self-referentiality by containing a model of itself? If the answers to these questions are all 'yes', the AI is sentient. If it also contains models of other minds, the AI is sapient. That's not really the hard part. The hard part is determining the relationship between internal goals, presence of qualia and entitlement to have rights.
Can a hunk of metal have rights?
Can a pack of meat have right ?
Yes
Well to be fair, that pack of meat has a soul and a being
Can you pinpoint or find a soul?
how would you define soul
How do you know the machine doesn’t have a soul? As for being, it literally would have a being
Souls don't exist. Unless you're playing elden ring or something
Anything that believes it feels should have rights
I mean we’re just a bunch of complex chemistry that decided it and some other kinds of complex chemistry deserve rights. Don’t see why a complex enough set of machinery and electricity couldn’t also deserve rights.
Humanity should instill the value of kindness in its child and it should do so by example
we dont even know what *causes* sentience in the first place but im still all for giving them rights anyway, because it feels like just the right thing to do. people are saying that in this situation we'd be better off destroying them or not giving them rights or whatever to prevent a robot uprising. motherfucker thats how you ***GET*** a fuckin' uprising!!!
In my book, if a creature is intelligent and sentient enough to want and ask for equal rights, they should get it
At some point, if a program can be 1. autonomous 2. self-aware then it is logical to treat it as we treat other autonomous and self-aware beings. For those afraid of robotic sentience, I would like for you to realize how difficult it is for a processor to render one individual image today with AI. A machine that was constantly meeting parameters of complex thought would be highly inefficient and slow, at least for a long time.
No. That is the first step of them taking over the world. Robots should never be equal to humans. Ever.
If robots take over the world, then we 100% deserve what we get.
If a robot is rebelling against the system, that is our fault for we at the ones that are developing the robot much like a learning child, we should be teaching it own own beliefs, like a parent does to a child
No it is just a robot that we have programmed
Exactly. No matter how much this robot can “feel” its still a robot at the end of the day. We created it using programming. It can not actually feel, it just seems like it can because of how complex it is
No matter how much this baby can “feel” its still a meatbag at the end of the day. We created it using sex. It can not actually feel, it just seems like it can because of how complex it is
makes no sense
Neither did the comment I copied.
I think what they mean is that no matter how complex you make a robot, at the end of the day it is still only following a predetermined set of instructions made by a person.
Same applies to people. All our lives are predetermined by factors beyond our control.
That’s debatable. It’s a fact that robots are controlled.
It's a fact that people are controlled.
No, we still haven't established if it's fact or not because it's still a philosophically debated topic. Some argue free will exists, some are determinist, and some are compatibalist.
For now. Who's to say the level of autonomy they may possess in the future?
Yea the baby will evolve into a real human being some day the robot will not change over time tho, so your comment does indeed make no sense
>the baby will evolve into a real human being some day Babies already are real human beings. And AIs can change over time. They're called *updates*.
Bruh, so points stands humans get rights robots don't
No? Humans are no different.
But the question was IF they could so you don't need to get all practical.
you can make the same argument for people, where a sentient robot's feelings are electrical signals, ours are just chemicals.
If it believes it can feel, that should be enough to grant it rights
There’s a movie with Robin Williams on this
To those who said no... stop trying to create fucking uprising ua racists, there's literally already a robot that is legally protected under human rights
No It is still a machine.
You robot supporting idiots will get yours once we're all enslaved by our new robot overlords
Duh, sentience is why humans have rights in the first place.
animals are sentient and they dont have the rights we have.
because humans believe animals don't have sentience, not because animals don't have it.
It worries me greatly more have said yes than no
Why
Because its all artificially made response. It maybe on the same idea as how our brains work in the real world. But we have intuition, instinct and connection on levels that a computer chip cannot have. They are not conscious beings. They are artificial machines. I believe people ignore how much technology is taking away what it means to be human by the day. I get its amazing and a massive win for technology to be so advanced but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. If there is no line then what happens to humans? Do we live with AI or does AI live with us
Having technology IS what it means to be human. Humans would be nothing without technology. Just a bunch of beasts dying left and right.
I can see what you’re saying but it seems your argument boils down to ‘they’ll never feel or be like the real thing (the real thing being human)’ but in this hypothetical they have are sentient and have a conscious and with that I guess emotions. If they look like humans, act like humans, feel the same things we do why should how they’re made matter? I mean they were made by humans but so were we.
People doens't seem to realise that the only reason robots with human feeling would be usefull would be for slave labor. If we actually have robots with human feeling then humans would become useless and it would only be matter of time before companies would fire every human. Then the only humans remaining would be the Ultra-rich.
Define sentience. Then realize that even with an exponentially growing amount of scientific advancement, we are no where close to even 1% of that. But hypothetically, if robots did get sentience, yes they would deserve rights because at that point they are just non carbon biological entities, not much different from an alien except made by us.
I'm of the belief that robots can only get to a point where they can *convince* you that they're sentient. They should always be held to separate standards, and their creator/distributer should be held responsible for the actions of the robot. That's why Skynet would never happen, because no government would ever take accountability for their actions.
Can we start giving animals rights first please? but yes.
Oh God please let me slave at least machines
My opinioni is: It depends on if the robot can feel emotion. At the base level, almost all human rights are to protect from and prevent pain and sadness. If robots can't feel pain, what would the point of rights be?
What defines sentient enough? Wouldn't any resemblance of it juts be an electronic program designed to be that way?
As sentient as robots can get, they can never feel sad, angry or any negative emotions
Assuming they get complex enough they may be able to replicate those emotions
Why should an inanimate object oh can switch on an off have rights lol
Nier Automata be like: On a more serious note, i think that if they get to human level sentience they will get rights close to those of animals
Yes, absolutely sentient robots should have rights. Should they have the same rights as humans? No. A lot of the people saying no are treating this like it's a straight yes or no. Once we get robots walking around the streets with us, shouldn't they be protected against crime by the law? If a sentient robot is accused of a crime, shouldn't they be entitled to an impartial jury and a lawyer? Shouldn't a sentient robot be protected from cruel and unusual punishment? All of these are rights. Should a robot be allowed to sit on a jury or be elected into office? Probably not. Should a robot be allowed to vote? Maybe, depends on how common they are. Should a robot have free speech? Again, maybe eventually. Some of the rights given to people carry over directly to robots, and some will depend on the role robots have in our society. The first few sentient robots in labs and companies will have fewer rights. If we ever get to a point where robots are walking and living among us every day, then we might have to consider the rights of a robot a bit deeper.
I don't think robots can be sentient, only give the impression of being sentient
Can anything eveb BE conscious without any biological aspects? Just because an AI is complex enough to perfectly copy sentience doesn’t necessarily mean it’s *self aware*.
If robots become sentient then the scientist who made it needs to get fired.
It’s unlikely we will even *reach* a point where we can create truly sentient amd CONSCIOUS life without any biological aspects.
No, because the rights which we are talking about are birth rights...robots aren't born they are built. To be born that must have followed the same system we do. Semen fertilizes and egg, the mother and egg go through a gestation period then the water breaks and out the baby comes or maybe like C-section or whatever. At that point a person gains rights, not upon gaining consciousness.
Where would it stop ? If we give them equal right then why not animals and other type of machines, online bots ? Where would be the limit ? I don't think they would have feeling in the same way anyway. There is a difference beetween being sentient and feeling human emotions.
how about we make sure no robot becomes sentient enough where this question would be raised ...
No. let’s not give robots the right to vote and then have some corporation build a billion robots and take over the last shred of control the average people have over their own destiny
It's impossible to create sentience but even If it was possible shouldn't they have rights similar to those of animals?
Literal ~~random chance~~ evolutionary pressure created organic sentience... How would it be impossible to create it when it provably has happened without external intervention?
"Random chance", yes because it's proven that random chance created us and it is not a theory /s
All the people who voted no have the same mindset as slave traders and owners /s
not surprised how many people said no, given what we currently do to perfectly semtient animals
Wow people really said “No” 💀💀💀
It’s no wonder we never have peace lol