People Love Robots

[Cherry Lover]

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).

It shouldn't be extraordinary, but it's taken us until the 20th Century to manage to give equal rights to humans who look different from us (and we're still not all-that-great at it). Robots are a step above that, with the added problem that it is very much not in the interests of big business (and, in particular, companies that make robots) to give them rights, so I don't imagine that gaining rights for robots is going to be a quick or easy process.

[Kat]

People are more and more accustomed to idea of other sentient species coexisting with humans through the influence of cultural works, and also more willing to warrant rights to other animals.

[Cherry Lover]

Sure, but there is also going to be a massive amount of pressure from corporations not to grant rights to robots, and especially not to limit their ability to indoctrinate them. Because robots who can be designed to fulfill any task and who are under ownership of their creator are extremely valuable, whereas robots which have rights from the moment of their creation have no value for their creator (and, indeed, cost money, because the company has to pay for the parts and equipment but gets nothing much out of it, especially if they can't design robots for a particular task).

In fact, if we grant robots full legal rights from the beginning and do not create robots for any specific purpose, robots will simply never exist in significant numbers, because there will be no value in anyone making them (or in companies working to create improved models, although academics still would). The only way they could exist would be through charitable ventures (which could potentially include robots creating "children" for theirselves) or due to creation by someone who is abusing a loophole in the rules to create robots that they can use and who will be loyal to them.

[Kat]

Isn't it much better that way? Robots being afforded full rights means they are not owned by anyone, and that's the point.

Also companies don't have as much sway over the world as governments with real power. For example I expect Brussels to implement legislation preventing a new form of slavery.

[Cherry Lover]

Isn't it much better that way? Robots being afforded full rights means they are not owned by anyone, and that's the point.

Yes, it is, but there are strong economic reasons why a lot of people will oppose the idea. And, convincing people that robots aren't deserving of rights is not going to be a hard sell, people are really good at looking at someone and saying "nah, they're not a person, the TV said so, it's fine for me to treat them like shit".

Also companies don't have as much sway over the world as governments with real power. For example I expect Brussels to implement legislation preventing a new form of slavery.

Haha, that was a really good joke.

Who do you think controls the governments? The people who fund their election campaigns, of course....

[Kat]

Yes, it is, but there are strong economic reasons why a lot of people will oppose the idea. And, convincing people that robots aren't deserving of rights is not going to be a hard sell, people are really good at looking at someone and saying "nah, they're not a person, the TV said so, it's fine for me to treat them like shit".

People are more conscious than you think, it is simply not in interest of corporations to exploit artificial sentient beings, which are going to be more expensive to maintain anyway even if enslaved than a low paid free worker. Public Relations matter.

Who do you think controls the governments? The people who fund their election campaigns, of course....

Why then governments not so rarely enact legislation that affects corporations negatively? European Union pushes for example for green polices.

[Cherry Lover]

Yes, it is, but there are strong economic reasons why a lot of people will oppose the idea. And, convincing people that robots aren't deserving of rights is not going to be a hard sell, people are really good at looking at someone and saying "nah, they're not a person, the TV said so, it's fine for me to treat them like shit".

People are more conscious than you think, it is simply not in interest of corporations to exploit artificial sentient beings, which are going to be more expensive to maintain anyway even if enslaved than a low paid free worker. Public Relations matter.

It's not necessarily in the interests of corporations to enslave already-existing sentient beings (although I think it still would be, because the wage they are paid will always need to cover the basics that a slave would have covered anyway), but it is certainly in their interests to enslave newly-created ones, because that ensures that the time and effort they put into creating them benefits the creator and not someone else.

Who do you think controls the governments? The people who fund their election campaigns, of course....

Why then governments not so rarely enact legislation that affects corporations negatively? European Union pushes for example for green polices.

Because such policies are bloody obviously right, that's why. Whilst the EU does push for green policies, it doesn't go anything like far enough to actually deal with Global Warming, due almost entirely to pressure from big business.

[Kat]

It's not necessarily in the interests of corporations to enslave already-existing sentient beings (although I think it still would be, because the wage they are paid will always need to cover the basics that a slave would have covered anyway), but it is certainly in their interests to enslave newly-created ones, because that ensures that the time and effort they put into creating them benefits the creator and not someone else.

Do you realize it's simply not worth it to enslave them? AI worker as someone luxurious to create would be more appreciated and respected than your average rank-and-file worker, and it would work better for companies.

Because such policies are bloody obviously right, that's why. Whilst the EU does push for green policies, it doesn't go anything like far enough to actually deal with Global Warming, due almost entirely to pressure from big business.

I say they push more than everyone, we only produce 15 % of pollution. It's good there is still not a ban on energy from coal, since coal can be used in more green way and Silesian scientists are working on that consistently. Nuclear energy combined with reasonably managed modern coal plants are only solution for Poland which does not have climate that allows reliable access to water, wind and solar energy. Experts estimate it can only cover few percents of our need.

[lantzblades]

Thing is you have the ethical issues and the practical ones. And you are both technically right. However I kinda have to side with Mike in this case (despite actually wanting to do the opposite) the practical issues are far and away the ones that will decide the production of humanoid robots or androids sentient or otherwise.

[Kat]

It's not about money you know. If it was all about money, there would be no work safety regulations, no labor rights, companies don't right over life and death of individuals.

And you always side with Mike anyway.

[lantzblades]

Yes, but I don't want to Kat, I'd prefer to side with the ethically correct side but evaluating the concepts with current society in mind Mike is, unfortunately right. The guys making the robots won't want to if they get nothing back.

[Kat]

Humans do things for various reasons, not only money. Scientists may do it for the sake of proving a point.

[Cherry Lover]

It's not about money you know. If it was all about money, there would be no work safety regulations, no labor rights, companies don't right over life and death of individuals.

No, not everything is about money, but money is a powerful motivator. I mean, why do you think slavery lasted so long in the Southern US?

Humans do things for various reasons, not only money. Scientists may do it for the sake of proving a point.

Yes, of course, but scientists don't have mass production facilities, or any particular desire to do mass production. Scientists will produce sentient robots, but only a very small number.

[Kat]

No, not everything is about money, but money is a powerful motivator. I mean, why do you think slavery lasted so long in the Southern US?

Traditionalism. With opening new cotton markets whole slavery system became redundant and South clinged to it nevertheless.

[Cherry Lover]

No, not everything is about money, but money is a powerful motivator. I mean, why do you think slavery lasted so long in the Southern US?

Traditionalism. With opening new cotton markets whole slavery system became redundant and South clinged to it nevertheless.

Well, even if it is true that it was no longer beneficial to the slaveowners to own slaves, "tradition" is a pretty strong motivator in this situation, too. Plenty of people will consider the whole concept of giving robots rights really odd at best.