Should the day ever come where robots can gain human rights?

[Techno-Druid]

I think in the event of hypothetically conscious AGI, we would have to reevaluate our understanding of rights and personhood (the latter of which is already a vague concept in the field of philosophy). Rights are based on empathy, we emphasize with the suffering of say, dogs and as such have (with some exceptions) passed laws that prevent the cruel treatment of dogs.

If AGI can prove that it has consciousness (another vague concept) and we can sufficiently emphasize with the struggles of synthetic intelligence, then undoubtedly they would be granted rights and if they displayed that on a level comparable or exceeding that of a human, they would be granted roughly equal personhood.

[Adam Jensen]

"Living" implies biological, inherently. So, no. Also, intelligence =/= sentience. Real sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively. This implies a naturally-occurring (ie, not the result of programming) state of consciousness. At best, AI would have artificial "sentience".



Nothing. It's still artificial.

But what is "living?"

There's no "special force" within humans or any life, it's all chemical machinery at the lowest levels. Proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, carbohydrates and water. That's about it. These aren't living things, they're chemicals. So if biological life is created by dead material and mechanical life is created by dead material, what's the difference? Is it not life because it's not based on organic chemistry, even if it functions the same way as life as we know it?

[Zaktar]

why is the title of the poll about robots and humans getting married, but the topic is about their future rights in general?

The fact that I didn't notice that has me questioning my own sentience =/ Oh well robots and humans can get married too, I voted for it so now I'm forced to stand behind that opinion for the rest of my life as per the rules of american politics.

[Shadowferal]

But what is "living?"

If you think it's all about bio-chemical reactions, then it seems to me you've a long way to go to truly answer that.

[Adam Jensen]

If you think it's all about bio-chemical reactions, then it seems to me you've a long way to go to truly answer that.

Life is an emergence of those trillions of chemical reactions. There's currently no scientific theory that adds any other sort of force or component behind it.

[Shadowferal]

The belief that science can answer everything in life is just that, a belief.
I believe differently. In that science can possibly answer less than half of reality, especially in the area of human life.

[Jyggalag]

Should the day ever come where robots can gain human rights?

Animals who've naturally inhabited this planet for millions of years still don't have anywhere close to human rights - why the fuck would any kind of man made machine??

[Doctor Amadeus]

Bad day, sorry. My cat ate some plastic and had to have surgery to get it removed.

Awww sorry to hear that, np completely understandable. I was concerned my title then the thread seemed baity which wasn't my intent, and over time I've come to value your opinion on stuff like that.

Surprised about your cat, I thought eating stuff was a kind of thing dogs mostly did, either way, hope your cat heals well.

[Surreality]

Yes. Right after they kill all the humans.

The belief that science can answer everything in life is just that, a belief.
I believe differently. In that science can possibly answer less than half of reality, especially in the area of human life.

Reality has somehow become subjective. The only true reality is natural order. Everything else is fantasy. Science can't solve fantasy.

[Shadowferal]

Not sure I'd use the word "subjective" so much as "abstract."

[Gref]

Yeah absolutely. If we do not, well there is a nice video on youtube;

Animatrix.

that explaining how this Matrix stuff started. After watching animatrix i had some serious trauma. Still, the music plays in my head and desperation is real.

[Araya]

At some point in the future we will have to have the conversation of what it means to be conscience. One of Star Trek TNG's best episodes is called "The Measure of a Man" and deals very much with this question. As well Alita sort of touches on this as well with Transhumanism.

[Depakote]

It's already happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Ox6H64yu8

[Drusin]

Nope.

*throws robot in trash*

[Aurabolt]

I have a few thoughts on this but will try to keep things short. Since this is a Sci-Fi Question, a movie and the plot for an anime suddenly come to mind.

The movie I'm thinking of is Bicentennial Man starring Robin Williams. The entire plot of the movie is about a clearly self-aware robot's 200-year jourmey to be legally recognized as human. Along the way, he "downgrades" his body to become as human as possible biologically. By the end of the movie, he dies of old age just as the courts rule he is to be legally considered human.

The anime I'm thinking of is SAO: Alicization. It's currentl in progress but you can read the Light Novel if you don't want to wait. Basically, Kirito is put in a virtual world that is a petri dish for creating true Sentient AI. The thing is, everyone in the virtual world is human as far as they know. The only ones who know the truth are Kirito (obviously), the Administrator--and AI herself--and the second Administrator the first created in the hope of becoming perfect being (which backfired). I won't go into any more detail than that but it's relevant to this discussion.

I also think of the warning bells being sounded by some of the world's leading programmers against AI from now. They are warning of a Terminator/Skynet-style nightmare scenario involving AI and are advocating strict limitations on AI R&D. There are concerns the very thing we are trying to create will turn on us at the first opportunity. The concerns are not emotionally driven but pure logic.

I do think anyone who makes Sophisticated AI must have measures in place and also develop additional measures to ensure it doesn't decide to wipe us out as soon as it has the means to do so. Think about it: Once the Sentient AI comes to the conclusion mankind wiping out mankind--or even just most of us--is what's best, it will stop at nothing to complete this objective and we probably will not be able to stop it. Allowing Sentient AI to learn how to be as imperfect as humans is the only real way to avoid this. The problem is folks want to develop AI with none of our flaws or sense of morality. The fact that there are many who want to bring something like that into this world with no restrictions is very concerning for me.

[Ihavewaffles]

No, u could just reprogram it just like any machine, all it can do is be a tool.

It will will be some silly do-gooder like those who voted yes, that will give it fucked up programming which could threaten human supremacy n survival...

[Mistame]

Your perspective is essentially that until it's shown it can be done, it's not possible?

My perspective is that AI will never truly be sentient.

Though with that definition I'm not certain any human hits the mark for sentience because I don't really believe in free will; our choices are a reflection of what we're biologically and socially programmed to do, like really complex calculators perpetually adding 2 and 2 to get 4.

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe. After all, there's people who believe the Earth is flat.

At any rate when it comes to machine sentience, you'll believe it when you see it and that's fair enough, but you're not making a particularly good argument as to why it can't possibly happen.

Your opinion on my argument is irrelevant. The point remains that a non-biological entity cannot organically achieve consciousness, which is the foundation of sentience.

If we develop something which can think on the same level as us, and because we've developed it it should, unlike animals, be able to communicate effectively with us, it would be in our best interest to consider granting it rights.

Intelligence is not the bar for sentience, naturally-occurring consciousness is. And we'll have to agree to disagree on the rights part. Animals don't need "rights", but laws against cruelty, etc, are fine. Non-biological entities don't need rights, period. I'd sooner give rights to a cockroach than a quantum computer. The very notion is irrational and illogical.

But what is "living?"

The biological state of not being dead.

[Zaktar]

My perspective is that AI will never truly be sentient.

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe. After all, there's people who believe the Earth is flat.

Your opinion on my argument is irrelevant. The point remains that a non-biological entity cannot organically achieve consciousness, which is the foundation of sentience.

Intelligence is not the bar for sentience, naturally-occurring consciousness is. And we'll have to agree to disagree on the rights part. Animals don't need "rights", but laws against cruelty, etc, are fine. Non-biological entities don't need rights, period. I'd sooner give rights to a cockroach than a quantum computer. The very notion is irrational and illogical.

The biological state of not being dead.

Being organic is not a requirement for sentience or consciousness, it's not in the definition. (Consciousness has some definitions which require personhood but if you think no animals are conscious then we truly have nothing to discuss). It sounds like you do believe in free will, which is a lot closer to a belief in flat earth than my view on the matter. Certainly no credible science I'm aware of supports its existence.

As beings which subjectively feel and perceive animals have a right to not be treated cruelly, so it is our responsibility to create laws which reflect that right and others. If we create machines which can similarly feel and perceive, we'll have the same duty whether we choose to ignore it or not.

My point about communication wasn't about intelligence being a bar for sentience, it was about communication. It is much harder for a dolphin to communicate its perspective than it would be for a non human being which speaks our languages.

You seem to think you've made a point but the argument you keep irrationally repeating is: to be truly sentient/conscious something must be organic. Which a) isn't in the basic definitions and b) is the question we're discussing: can something which is not organic be sentient? "Well it can't be therefore you're wrong." It's like saying "the earth must be flat because it isn't round." Great, make an actual point which supports that "fact" or I'll cheerfully keep assuming I live on a globe.

[Shadowferal]

Saying being organic isn't a requirement is an opinion predicated upon something that isn't known.
If a machine isn't organic then it is impossible to understand organic needs.

[Mistame]

It sounds like you do believe in free will, which is a lot closer to a belief in flat earth than my view on the matter. Certainly no credible science I'm aware of supports its existence.

It sounds to me like you're using some abstract, philosophical (read nonsensical) definition of "free will". "Free will" is defined as, "the ability to act at one's own discretion". So, yes, it exists.

You seem to think you've made a point but the argument you keep irrationally repeating is: to be truly sentient/conscious something must be organic. Which a) isn't in the basic definitions

It not being in the "basic definition" isn't an argument. But it can be easily demonstrated in the real world. How many cases are there of a non-biological entities that have, outside of their programming, developed true consciousness or sentience? The answer is none. Logical deduction leads to the conclusion that it only exists in biological entities.

If want to continue "philosophizing" about this particular topic, go right ahead. But I only deal in reality. So unless you have demonstrable evidence that contradicts my point, I've got better things to do.