People Love Robots

[Cherry Lover]

Eh, people can do with non intelligent machines what they want, since they have no sentience,

The problem is, though, what happens if such a machine develops sentience? If people are trying to make their non-intelligent machines act more and more human, at some point one of them might become actually sentient. In such a case, you would have a being that deserves rights (and may well ask for them), but will still have programming that, on a fundamental level, makes them desire to serve humans and desire particular sexual activities.

but if we can mimick how human minds acquire and develop personality, robots don't need to be implanted with pre-defined tastes and personality, they should acquire them on their own. If an intelligent non-human decides to be a prostitute or a scientist on its own, we should respect that. True AI should be not created as specificly crafted servants, but as our younger siblings in intelligence.

Yeah, I would generally agree with that as a concept, but there are several issues with it. Firstly, human personality is at least partially genetic. Not fully, no, but genetics definitely play a part in how we end up and, for a robot, the equivalent of that would be their base programming. Sure, we can design a robot with a learning algorithm that causes them to develop in ways we don't fully control, but we can still bias that process by how we design the algorithm in the first place. Secondly, the rest of human personality is derived from our interactions with the outside world and, in particular, our parents. A robot won't have that, it will be developed in a lab and "raised" by the scientists programming it. Which means that they will have a massive amount of control over how exactly it develops.

Obviously a scientist programming a sentient robot won't be able to reliably produce a robot who wishes to become a prostitute (because that ability to choose for yourself is almost the very definition of sentience), and I would hope that the scientists in question would have enough decency to see any robots they create as something akin to their "children" rather than just as experiments to play around with, but they most certainly could have a significant influence on how the robot developed if they desired, just like bad human parents can mold their children into whatever form they desire (hence why nutty religious fanatics tend to have nutty religious fanatic children, at least for a while).

And, also, whilst I agree with you on a moral level, I strongly doubt this is how AI will actually develop. Some company will design and patent a sentient robot, and will then sell it as a product until someone points out that, actually, this is really quite shitty and that sentient beings should absolutely not be treated as slaves. However, given our past history in that respect, I doubt it will be a quick or easy process to obtain rights for sentient robots. So, we likely will end up at some point with a whole bunch of sentient slave robots that have been freed of their obligation to serve people, but still have an in-built desire to do so.

That's like saying that we should be allowed to choose our own genes....

In fact we can, genetic engineering is a thing that won't only prevent diseases caused by the make up of DNA, but improve humanity in such fields like lifespan.

No, we can choose other people's genes. We can never choose our own, because they are determined before we are born, and make up part of who we are.

[Kat]

The problem is, though, what happens if such a machine develops sentience? If people are trying to make their non-intelligent machines act more and more human, at some point one of them might become actually sentient. In such a case, you would have a being that deserves rights (and may well ask for them), but will still have programming that, on a fundamental level, makes them desire to serve humans and desire particular sexual activities.

Simple. Either we make sure that there are mechanics that prevent development of intelligence in servitor machines, or we don't create them at all. We should be responsible as species to not create an intelligent servant just to serve our egos and needs.

As an atheist I am convinced there is no other type of beings controlling our fate and lives. Why should humanity act like gods to other sentient species, even artificial?

The same genetics enable us to rise above our upbringing and learn. There are children of religious people that are atheistic. I'm fine example.

No, we can choose other people's genes. We can never choose our own, because they are determined before we are born, and make up part of who we are.

At one point we might be able to freely repair and modify our DNA while alive.

[Cherry Lover]

The problem is, though, what happens if such a machine develops sentience? If people are trying to make their non-intelligent machines act more and more human, at some point one of them might become actually sentient. In such a case, you would have a being that deserves rights (and may well ask for them), but will still have programming that, on a fundamental level, makes them desire to serve humans and desire particular sexual activities.

Simple. Either we make sure that there are mechanics that prevent development of intelligence in servitor machines, or we don't create them at all. We should be responsible as species to not create an intelligent servant just to serve our egos and needs.

Should be? Yeah, sure. Will be? I wouldn't count on it. There's a lot of money available if you can make and sell an intelligent machine.

Plus, robots will need to be made using materials and factories that are owned by someone. That person is inevitably going to claim ownership of them, and I think that society as it is is not going to do a good job of dealing with that conflict.

As an atheist I am convinced there is no other type of beings controlling our fate and lives. Why should humanity act like gods to other sentient species, even artificial?

Sure, but we do have a signficant amount of control over our own raising.

The same genetics enable us to rise above our upbringing and learn. There are children of religious people that are atheistic. I'm fine example.

Sure, and sentient robots will inevitably do that. However, even if we are capable of coming to conclusions that are not forced on us by our parents, what we were taught as children does still affect us. I am atheist, but my morality is ultimately based on Christian morality to at least some extent, because that is just how our society is.

No, we can choose other people's genes. We can never choose our own, because they are determined before we are born, and make up part of who we are.

At one point we might be able to freely repair and modify our DNA while alive.

It's unlikely to a significant extent, because our genes make up who we are. We probably can use genetic engineering to modify certain cells so that they work properly, but large-scale genetic engineering is a lot more difficult.

[lantzblades]

This is the way I see the whole thing going down. Robots in human form will be first developed to do basic stuff like elderly care, stuff like that or things that are too dangerous for humans. Then, given the fact that we have this thing called porno they will become a commodity as a "companion" sold in sex shops and the like. (Japan will likely embrace or outright ban their use as such though. Eventually the robots will wind up like Data) also it could be used as a therapy or self medication for some disorders or sexual problems. Once sentient beings I see religious groups back flipping in rage over the human soul etcetera.

[Cherry Lover]

This is the way I see the whole thing going down. Robots in human form will be first developed to do basic stuff like elderly care, stuff like that or things that are too dangerous for humans. Then, given the fact that we have this thing called porno they will become a commodity as a "companion" sold in sex shops and the like. (Japan will likely embrace or outright ban their use as such though. Eventually the robots will wind up like Data) also it could be used as a therapy or self medication for some disorders or sexual problems.

Yeah, that seems pretty likely. The question, though, is at what point sentience comes into the picture. Sentience is not the same as human-like appearance.

Once sentient beings I see religious groups back flipping in rage over the human soul etcetera.

Well, I think it would be more that they would simply argue that robots were not "alive" (and, therefore, did not deserve rights), since they could not possibly possess a soul. Certainly I have heard that argument used before when I have brought up the idea of a sentient robot.

I suspect that would be the biggest problem when it came to dealing with sentient robots. A lot of old-fashioned and religious people would outright reject any notion of them having rights, and would say they could use them as they wished.

[Kat]

Should be? Yeah, sure. Will be? I wouldn't count on it. There's a lot of money available if you can make and sell an intelligent machine.

Plus, robots will need to be made using materials and factories that are owned by someone. That person is inevitably going to claim ownership of them, and I think that society as it is is not going to do a good job of dealing with that conflict.

Slavery is banned in civilized states. If people start enslaving intelligent species because they are non biological, we will need another Lincoln.

It's unlikely to a significant extent, because our genes make up who we are. We probably can use genetic engineering to modify certain cells so that they work properly, but large-scale genetic engineering is a lot more difficult.

Nanomachines, son.

Elderly care can be done by humans. Dangerous stuff can be done by machines without any sentience, even remotely controlled from afar. We don't need AI for that stuff.

[lantzblades]

Sentience is generally defined as having the ability to choose, being self aware, etcetera.

well I doubt fucks will be given until robo Lincoln shows up.

[Kat]

Lincoln was not black and a slave, so there won't be robo Lincoln.

[lantzblades]

I didn't mean a literal robot Lincoln Kat.

[Kat]

Good you clarified

[Cherry Lover]

Should be? Yeah, sure. Will be? I wouldn't count on it. There's a lot of money available if you can make and sell an intelligent machine.

Plus, robots will need to be made using materials and factories that are owned by someone. That person is inevitably going to claim ownership of them, and I think that society as it is is not going to do a good job of dealing with that conflict.

Slavery is banned in civilized states.

Yeah, now. That's a pretty recent concept....

If people start enslaving intelligent species because they are non biological, we will need another Lincoln.

Yes, but why do you think we needed the original one...?

Also, even after Lincoln, it took a hell of a long time for the concept that everyone was equal to take hold. Even now we struggle....

It's unlikely to a significant extent, because our genes make up who we are. We probably can use genetic engineering to modify certain cells so that they work properly, but large-scale genetic engineering is a lot more difficult.

Nanomachines, son.

Sure, but the point is that our genetics are part of who we are. There is a certain point where it's questionable if we even should change them.

Elderly care can be done by humans. Dangerous stuff can be done by machines without any sentience, even remotely controlled from afar. We don't need AI for that stuff.

Elderly care can be done by humans, but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be. Humans might simply not want to do it. As for dangerous stuff, whilst we can use remote-controlled machines, intelligent ones may be better (although in some cases, like ones where the machine's survival would be at stake, they would be worse).

Sentience is generally defined as having the ability to choose, being self aware, etcetera.

Sure, but how can you tell if someone has that ability? I mean, my computer can make "choices" (as can a fly), and self-awareness is an internal property that cannot easily be tested.

[Kat]

Yeah, now. That's a pretty recent concept....

No need to regress.

Elderly care can be done by humans, but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be. Humans might simply not want to do it. As for dangerous stuff, whilst we can use remote-controlled machines, intelligent ones may be better (although in some cases, like ones where the machine's survival would be at stake, they would be worse).

Increase pay and more people will be willing to do it. In my opinion sentient robots should be paid for the job the same as humans, naturally.

Endangering life of a sentient being? I prefer less efficient remote-controlled machine.

[Cherry Lover]

Yeah, now. That's a pretty recent concept....

No need to regress.

Yeah, but it's not a matter of "regression". We accept that all humans have equal rights, that doesn't automatically imply that any sentient being does. That is another step forward from where we are now.

Elderly care can be done by humans, but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be. Humans might simply not want to do it. As for dangerous stuff, whilst we can use remote-controlled machines, intelligent ones may be better (although in some cases, like ones where the machine's survival would be at stake, they would be worse).

Increase pay and more people will be willing to do it. In my opinion sentient robots should be paid for the job the same as humans, naturally.

Well, yes, that is definitely true. A sentient being should get treated the same as any other sentient being.

Endangering life of a sentient being? I prefer less efficient remote-controlled machine.

Well, yes, I was thinking more of situations which would endanger a human but not a robot (or, at very least, where putting a sentient being at risk was justified, but a robot would be at less risk than a human). Although, obviously, any such robot would have to act voluntarily.

[Kat]

Yeah, but it's not a matter of "regression". We accept that all humans have equal rights, that doesn't automatically imply that any sentient being does. That is another step forward from where we are now.

It acts like a human, thinks like a human, chances are it looks like a human. Extending right to robots is not something extraordinary. Few countries even gave rights to higher animals (whales and dolphins have legal rights in
India).

[lantzblades]

Yes Kat, but there's a certain, call it a reflex I guess. Humans kinda want to be special and admitting to factory pressed sentience is an ego bruise at best a down right fire starter at worst.