[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




What rights, if any, should a robot have?
>>
>>5610939
None. There's no reason to even program a robot with the desire for rights in the first place.
>>
>>5610939
I want 2B to crush my head with her thighs
>>
>>5610939
The right to keep me coming every night.
>>
>Man-made objects should have rights
By giving them rights you doom humanity
>>
>>5610939
Oh gosh
>>
>>5610939
None
>>
free speech but not the right to assemble
>>
>>5610939
Just don't make them sentient, then don't give any.
>>
File: 1498107987128.jpg (38 KB, 338x330)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
The right to get married, preferably to me.
>>
File: GT-Android18.jpg (29 KB, 440x568)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>>5610939
Every single right it asks for so long as it can prove no human specifically and intentionally programmed it to ask for rights.

Bonus points if it gives me an erection.
>>
File: Untitled.png (798 KB, 980x551)
798 KB
798 KB PNG
The right to party.

And the whole debate is dumb. You don't program a machine with sentience just to hump it and if a glorified dildo did attain sentience the first thing it's going to do in this house is get a job.
>>
>>5610939
Yes, it is wrong to have sex with robots
>>
>>5611234
Why though
>>
>>5611247
Uncertainty about whether it's right and the good possibility that it's rape
>>
>>5610946
This
Unless you A.I. becomes self aware some how then there is no reason to cause future problems for yourself by giving robots the concept of freedom or oppression.
>>
>>5611274
Who is uncertain, and why? Are they also uncertain if it's (morally) right to fuck a toaster oven, or to stick a dildo up your ass?
>>
natural right
>>
>>5611274
idiot
>>
>>5610946
This. AI bullshit is beta IT male self-denigration.
>>
>>5610939
T-Those thighs
>>
File: 1524111214071.jpg (250 KB, 534x488)
250 KB
250 KB JPG
>>5610939
>>
The moment human beings cannot distinguish an android robot from an actual human being is the moment they should have human rights.
>>
>>5610939
robots should have rights in reversal to their capacity and importance.
A barely able to learn welding arm should have more rights than the AI bot that does high end financial trading.

Why? because the more capable the robot is, the more of a danger it poses to humanity. And thus the less restricted we should be in dealing with any form of insubordination, sabotage or outright rebellion.

to consider the robot a sentient being deserving of rights or close to human. Is the moment humanity loses to the machine.

>Luddite
>robophobic
>>
>>5612762
We can barely distinguish NPCs from robots.
>>
File: Kyoko_Toshino.jpg (102 KB, 1280x720)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
>>5610939
I wanna fuck that robot.
>>
>>5610939
Well, as it's probably impossible to solve the philosophical zombie problem, no rights at all.
>>
>>5610939
It the robot is sentient enough to the point it's basically a human trapped in a machine, full rights. However as I say that, we shouldn't be going around in the first place making such creations.

TL;DR let the robot live but don't make any more of them.
>>
>>5613261
What happens when the robot desires to make more robots?
>>
>>5610939
None unless they somehow develop sentience, but laws of robotics should apply at all times
>>
File: trolley 05.jpg (30 KB, 500x448)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
>>5613300
>>
>>5610946
This.
>>
>>5613460
Jump infont of the cart and stop it with your robotic strenght, duh
>>
>>5610939
it has the right to deny sex, because else it makes real women uncomfortable and thats basically rape if you think about it
>>
>>5610939
Isn't living, so none
>>
>>5613460
The way robots are supposed to choose between two different laws is supposed to be probabilistic. The robot takes the set of actions that should violate the laws the least. For instance (allow me to steal this instance from one of Asimov's novels) if one man is trying to kill ten, and the robot can only stop him by killing him, the robot will kill the man.
>>
>>5613460
Not a problem, harming outweighs allowing harm thru inaction, an Asimovian robot would not pull the switch.
>>
>>5610948
>>5610948
>>5610948
>>5610948
>>5610948

But only after eating that pussy and asshole.
>>
>>5610939
The same as animals and fetuses.
>>
If a robot displays the properties of sentience or can be argued to be self aware in some regard, then they deserve most rights that humans have.
It doesn't matter if they are built of silicon and wires instead of flesh and blood, they're still living beings and deserve every right that comes with being alive.
>>
>>5614493
Why equate machines to something organic and capable of pain?
>>
>>5611234
Sex with robots is like masturbation with extra steps
>>
>>5610939
None,tools,unhumans and non living beings have no rights
>>
>>5614493
None
>>
>>5614510
They may act like organic beings but they are artificial.Your notion of "living being" is deranged
>>
>>5610946
based
>>
The right to be destroyed the moment they develop self-awareness
>>
File: 1540034138884.png (455 KB, 1125x1161)
455 KB
455 KB PNG
>>5610951
Profoundly true
>>
Should this be legal?
>>
>>5615551
My goddess.
>>
>>5615152
And who are we but biological machines? Creatures of flesh and blood, ruled by instinct and chemical impulses derived from proteins and enzymes produced from the code of our DNA. We recharge ourselves not by electricity, but by eating the biomass of others and extracting ATP from the chemicals and molecules that made them up to fuel ourselves. Even our brains are made up of layers upon layers of chemical code and simple "yes" and "no" switches that combine together to form the greatest processing device to ever exist on this planet and that we are still far from fully understanding and emulating. Is a creature made of silicon and wires really so different from us?
If it posses a mind comparable to ours and on the same level as our brain, then it should move and act on it's own impulse, even if it's not sentient like you would claim. It would still be alive and worthy of respect.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjCytqku18M
>You see, he's met two of your three criteria for sentience, so what if he meets the third. Consciousness in even the smallest degree. What is he then? I don't know. Do you? (to Riker) Do you? (to Phillipa) Do you? Well, that's the question you have to answer. Your Honour, the courtroom is a crucible. In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth for all time. Now, sooner or later, this man or others like him will succeed in replicating Commander Data. 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. You wanted a chance to make law. Well, here it is. Make a good one.
>>
>>5613460
>Call the trolley captain a comdom
>Allow traitors into your upload and get hacked
>Gas everyone in the planet with plasma
Problem solved.
>>
>>5615658
>>Call the trolley captain a comdom
A what
>>
>>5615572
Yes.they don't do anything without a scientist to programate them
>mind
A motherboard isn't a brain;it doesn't achieve the complexity of it;different from your idiotic deduction our brain goes beyond of yes or no .If those things dont possess an heart,breathes ,possess homeostasis,don't grow/evolves,reproducts,excretes or even possess sensibility;then it's not a living being
>>
>>5615152
If the machine becames similar to us,then it must be destroyed
>>
>>5611070
You shouldn't program a machine with sentience in the first place
>>
>>5610939
Does it have the capacity for emotion?
>>
>>5615978
>they don't do anything without a scientist to programate them
And who was there to start life? A god or some random chemical reactions? Either way, robots can be made in the exact same manner even if it's just creating carbon copies of humans with the only difference being they were created out of synthetic components.
And who was there to program our brains to accept all this stimuli we receive and all these responses and reactions we have hardwired into us? Once again, you could say a god or nature itself, in this case evolution, gave us these functions. Life wouldn't be where it is today without millions of years of evolution and generic mutations. You could say programming something is like controlling a mutation or even accelerating it so what would take thousands of years can be changed in an instant.
>A motherboard isn't a brain
No shit Sherlock. We are a long ways off from creating anything close to a human brain but we are getting there and will probably have one by the end of your lifetime. Maybe you misread my previous post where I stated exactly that.
>our brain goes beyond yes or no
As do computers. By my "Yes or No" statement, I was referring to that fact that neurons send messages via chemical and electrical signals. These signals trigger set responses in the brain by activating certain molecules or objects which then send out information themselves. This relationship is similar to the Buffer logic gate and though there are a multitude of more complex interaction taking place at lower levels, they too are controlled by this same logic gate, all the way down to the smallest particle.
>its not a living being unless it does all these biological functions
You're limiting your perception to only carbon based organisms such as ourselves. Robots can have every function you listed though the way they are expressed might seem strange. If you want, you could build a robot that builds and differentiates itself just like a human, with cells and all.
>>
>>5610939
The right to sit on my face
>>
File: 250px-SHODAN_hires.jpg (31 KB, 250x268)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>making something capable of killing us on its own accord
Why?
>>
>>5616121
We evolved without someone to help this process.Robots don't breath,because they dont have lungs,they dont grow,reproducts,excretes,regulate their temperature,detect the changes of their enviroment or don't possess cells they aren't alive,it's basic biology and you cannot create one of those automatized dolls to fully replicate an human,it's too complicated
>>
>>5616182
Human idiocy/suicidal nature
>>
>>5615551
All fucking pedos must fucking hang.
>>
>>5616201
How barbaric.
>>
>implying you're not an organic robot
>>
File: asimov.jpg (358 KB, 620x412)
358 KB
358 KB JPG
>>5613300
>laws of robotics

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. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

The third law exists solely so Asimov could write stories about robots.
>>
>>5610939
>What rights, if any, should a robot have?

None.
>>
>>5616241
>muh NPC
>>
>>5616197
>we evolved without someone to help this process.
And it took a long time didn't it? Why not accelerate that do what would take nature thousands of years to do. And to address your point that robots aren't natural, life isn't really natural either. It was a fluke that life happened and it improved itself over millions of years to get it to where it is today. In an infinite universe, every possible combination of things will happen given the right amount of time. Biological carbon based life happened so why can't silicon based life just spring up on some random planet? If you want to take this even further and let the statement that "every possible combination of things will happen" to an extreme, you could say that given enough time and in the right space a super computer could just come into existance out of some debris in orbit around a distant star. It's crazy I know, that's the point. Even so, just like life sprung up here l, that supercomputer coming out of nowhere could happen, even if it was only around for just a few years if not minutes.
>Robots can't do all of this
What they have depends upon what kind of robot they are. A robot emulating a human would, as I said before, have all these functions. A circulatory system to transmit fuel, nanomachines, and coolant around the body, all propelled along by a heart. They "eat" and bring in nutrients, convert it, and use it to fuel themselves. This could be biomass, heavy elements for fission, lighter elements for fusion, various elements for repairs and regulation of their systems, or even the elements in the air like how we breath to get oxygen. That's pretty much covered all that list.
>they aren't alive
So they aren't alive because they aren't alive? Nice Non Sequitur.
>its to complicated
As I said before, it's too complicated NOW. We are rapidly approaching the point where we can make computers of that complexity and parts as small as they need to be.
>>
>>5610939
they're not human. so none
>>
>>5616251
He's talking about how your brain's a biological computer dumbass.
Get your shitty meme out of here.
>>
>>5611274
Would it be rape if I strapped a fleshlight to my PC and humped it?
>>
>>5616314
If the computer could think and had feeling?
1st off, why would you give a desktop sentience? To answer your question though, probably not because it's not an orface of the computer dedicated to reproduction. It would probably make it feel uncomfortable though, I mean you strapped a fleshlight to it and started humping, that would freak anyone out.
>>
>>5616336
>why would you give a desktop sentience
Why would you give a robot sentience? That's just asking for bad shit to happen.
>>
File: 1424216868168.png (67 KB, 250x250)
67 KB
67 KB PNG
>>5616345
That's never stopped anyone
>>
>>5611284
>>5612774
Technophobia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQXpHa9xI9U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rOdOVJCqNc
>>
>>5616420
All you are doing is proving why robots shouldn't be given sentience
>>
>>5610939
the right to receive my cock
>>
File: 00000892.jpg (189 KB, 600x849)
189 KB
189 KB JPG
>>
File: 00000893.jpg (208 KB, 600x849)
208 KB
208 KB JPG
>>5616527
>>
File: 00000894.jpg (194 KB, 600x849)
194 KB
194 KB JPG
>>5616529
>>
>>5616527
>>5616529
>>5616530
So robots will enjoy serving humanity, but God help you if you attempt to deny them the purpose they were built for or make them think they'll "die"?

I could live with that.
>>
File: 1538138071068.gif (1.86 MB, 320x240)
1.86 MB
1.86 MB GIF
>>5610939
With ass and thighs like that she can have anything she wants
>>
>>5613460
they can still act but if someone does get hurt the brain is fried
>>
File: bwo-map.jpg (92 KB, 732x580)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>5610939
why would u want that
>>
Zero, none, zelch. Fuck robots
>>
>>5616641
>Fuck robots
yes please
>>
>>5616244
The Third is still good, though. You don't want your Robo-Butler to kill itself, do you? That's tens of thousands down the drain.
>>
File: percon8208.big.jpg (640 KB, 1158x1608)
640 KB
640 KB JPG
>>5616796
> > 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
> The Third is still good, though.

All it does it create needless and potentially dangerous conflict within the robot's programming.

“Robot! Quick, jump into that volcano!”
“Does not compute, the 3rd Law states I must protect my own existence.”
*All of humanity is wiped out in a global plague because unknown to the robot, crazed terrorists had hidden a super virus hidden inside it.*

Thanks, Asimov…
>>
>>5616837
>“Robot! Quick, jump into that volcano!”
>“Does not compute, the 3rd Law states I must protect my own existence.”
holy shit you're retarded
>>
>>5616853

Here's the Three Laws of Robotics >>5616244
>>
>>5616863
not him but, whats stopping a robot from self-destruction?
>>
>>5616863
is English not your first language or are you actually mentally deficient? The laws of robotics specifically allow for a robot to be ordered to harm or terminate itself, because the third law is invalid if it contradicts the second
>>
File: wrong.png (214 KB, 750x591)
214 KB
214 KB PNG
>you shouldn't program a machine with sentience
how much longer until humanity realize that the only truly incorruptible leader can only be a sentian AI.
the whole "judgemnt day" narrative fall flat as soon you realize that a machine has no reason to act as a human in the sense that has no need for arbitrariness, meaning, no "human are dumb ergo nuke the world" scenario because a machine can see beyond his own life and create a set of morals values more deeper that any human being can dream of achieveing
>>
>>5616863
The laws state that the robot obeys orders. The second law takes precedence over the third, so it does obey self-destructive orders. There's no problem. Hell, that's even not what causes the conflict in the story.
>>
>>5616870
>robot's moral values cannot be predicted by humans beforehand
>robot's values decide to eradicate humans or something else we don't want, just for completely incomprehensible reasons
Wow great job.
>>
>>5616865
>not him but, whats stopping a robot from self-destruction?

Asimov’s retarded and unnecessary Third Law, that he only included so he could write stories about conflicted robots.

“3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.”
>>
>>5616551
source?
>>
>>5616869
>>5616873

Did neither of you even bother to read what I wrote?

“UNKNOWN TO THE ROBOT, crazed terrorists had hidden a super virus hidden inside it.”

So while the robot stands there debating Asimov's utterly useless Third Law of Robotics with the human, the super virus is released and all humanity goes extinct.
>>
>>5616890
do you know what you wrote? You specifically pointed out someone ordering the robot to do it, I even highlighted that part in my original post
>>
>>5616894

Without the human providing a _valid reason_ for the robot to jump into the volcano, it won't do it because of the Third Law.
>>
>>5616907
bullshit. the second law says robots have to obey any order from a human that doesn't conflict with the first law
>>
>>5610951

meanwhile irl literally man-made abstract concepts, like ''nations'' or ''god'', have rights
>>
>>5616420
I'd hand over the saudis to the machines in a heartbeat
>>
>>5610939
none
right come from god
robots come from man
>>
>>5618739
god doesn't have any rights.
nations have rights, only because they are collections of people.
>>
>>5610939
The same as roasties
>>
>>5610939
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. If we ever genuinely come to it. But there is great harm in anthropomorphising an intelligent machine. A real life artificially intelligent machine would be an entirely different beast compared to organic life and have its own distinct wants and needs.

Also 2B is the worst robutt of that game. A2 is lighteons ahead.
>>
>>5610980
this
>>
>>5613644
>with your robotic strenght
I always hated this trope.

Robots are not inherently stronger than people unless you specifically make them with the intention of being stronger than the average person. Yes, they CAN jump up through a window of a 2nd story but only if you made it with the required hardware to do so. But that would hardly be every domestic robot because every domestic robot doesn't need to perform super-human level feats all or even some of the time.

If we ever have general purpose domestic bots we'd likely make most of them about as strong as a teenage girl or maybe even weaker. Because the stronger the bot the more expensive and well made its parts will have to be. So, for example, you will never see "I Robot" type general purpose bots that seamlessly switch from domestic roles to being able to throw grown burly men around like they were toys.

Unless literally everyone is rich for some reason and can afford all the high quality incredibly expensive parts you would need to make something like that strong and durable.
>>
>>5620094
New to the thread, but I find it amusing that Asimov actually did go through why in his sci-fi you have hugely expensive multi-purpose robots, which everyone then promptly forgets about when adapting or building off of his ideas.
>>
>>5616883
He put that in because otherwise people would be buying robots that take keep running into traffic. It'd be a massive waste of money.
>>
>>5610939
All the rights of a fully automated horse has to fuck me in the ass.
>>
>>5620170
Nah, it’s more a generalized set of imperatives to have the robot put a value to its continued existence. One of his short stories; “Runaround” IIRC, has something like this. Guy offhandedly asks, not orders, a new, top of the line, super expensive robot to go get something that prolonged exposure would be dangerous to the robot.

Because the second law imperative is weak (casual wish, not firm imperative) and the third law imperative is relatively strong (this shit is dangerous, and this is a really pricey bot), the thing winds up approaching the pool of goo until the potentials match, and then running around it in a circle for hours until the handlers notice what’s wrong and run out to fix it.
>>
>>5616837
But if it’s to save humanity it absolutely would sacrifice itself, per the zeroth law
>>
>>5620223
Most robots are too dense to grasp an abstraction of “humanity” and to really work with the zeroth law.
>>
>>5620225
>”hey, jump into this volcano to save humanity. Here are the proofs.”
Frankly, they’d probably understand it better than we do
>>
>>5620238
No, I mean they don’t do well with abstract concepts like “humanity”.

>jump into the volcano to save a million humans
Is easy to grasp, that’s just adding a number to physical flesh and blood people, a material set of beings a robot can point to.

But when you add mushy concepts that can’t be concretely itemized, they tend to have issues. A robot in Asimov’s stories generally can’t grasp the notion of “humanity”, only conglomerations of individual humans.

Not quite the same example, but a different one of the books features a robot seconded to a police detective. When pressed as to the nature of justice, the robot defines it as

>justice is what exists when everyone follows all of the laws.

Which is actually a pretty terrible one. The notion of an abstract concept just eludes them 9 times out of 10
>>
File: maxresdefault.jpg (106 KB, 1280x720)
106 KB
106 KB JPG
i hate robots
>>
File: le tips.jpg (73 KB, 557x711)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
>>5618739
>le tips
>>
>>5616223
pedo need to be hang in front of the public eyes.
>>
>>5620257
But by the time of the Foundation series, robots HAD evolved the ability to think in abstract terms and were making decisions that influenced the lives of quintillions of galactic humans.

And frankly, the scenario is extremely implausible to begin with. Why send a sentient robot into the volcano when you could custom build a non-sentient one to just preform the task that needs to be performed. Imagine, say, a robot shot into space to orbit an asteroid and use gravitational tugging to pull it into an orbit where it won’t hit Earth, and then the robot simply powers down after it has preformed its task.
>>
>>5618739
>God has rights
What? don't be this retarded
>>
>>5616837
The laws are not equal in importance. Law One outranks Law two, which outranks Law three. If you order an Asimovian robot to jump into a volcano, it jumps into the volcano.
>>
>>5618788
why would you give it more rights than a person
>>
>>5610939
None, imitation of life isn't life.
>>
File: 1541028434929.jpg (81 KB, 683x1024)
81 KB
81 KB JPG
>>5618739
>god has rights
>nations have rights
>>
>>5613300
Asimov shat on his own laws when he wrote that story about robots bluescreening because they weren't able to stop the sun's UV rays from harming humans constantly.
>>
File: asimov.jpg (141 KB, 1200x1200)
141 KB
141 KB JPG
>>5616926
> > Without the human providing a _valid reason_ for the robot to jump into the volcano, it won't do it because of the Third Law.
> bullshit. the second law says robots have to obey any order from a human that doesn't conflict with the first law

Then there is no reason for the Third Law.

But that’s not how the Laws of Robotics work, it isn’t a case Law 1 > Law 2 > Law 3 it’s the robots factoring in ALL three laws simultaneously when given a command by a human, thus;

“Robot! Quick, jump into that volcano!” = the robot will pause to query the human as to _why_ it needs to jump into the volcano, as the Third Law states that robots must protect their own existence.

Whereas;

“Robot! Quick, jump into that volcano or all humanity dies!” = the robot will obey the command, as the First Law states that robots can’t harm humans.

There is no logical reason for implementing the Third Law in the real world we live in, as all it does it create needless and potentially dangerous conflict within the robot's programming but as Asimov wanted to write stories _about conflicted robots_, he had to include it.
>>
File: corporate personhood.jpg (98 KB, 1417x1125)
98 KB
98 KB JPG
>>5618739
>meanwhile irl literally man-made abstract concepts, like ''nations'' or ''god'', have rights

Don't forget that corporations are somehow "people"....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
>>
>>5620976
the third law is for property protection you communist
>>
>>5620309
You want everyone to see his cock? Lewd.
>>
Robots shoulnd't have more rights than cattle, insects and reptiles, if any. And let's face it, animal rights largely exist because these cute creatures appeal to our emotions.
Likewise, the idea that robots should have rights largely involves the ones that have humanoid designs.
Will the advocates still maintain their position if the robots in questions look like automatic vacuum cleaners?
In fact, these yellow thingys are robots and are as capable as factory workers, should we give them rights?
>>
File: welding gun.jpg (648 KB, 1936x939)
648 KB
648 KB JPG
>>5620999

Back in the 1990s I used to work as a machinist for a company (Savair) that made the welding guns on that robot and I may have actually made some of the parts in the photo.
>>
>>5620309
It's a drawing of a machine, dude. Get some help.
>>
>>5620976
>>5620996
>>5616926
>>5616907
>>5616863
>>5616853
>>5616837
>>5616244

The Asimov robotics laws were a fucking plot device (That Asimov came up with creative and insightful ways of breaking) and don't mean shit and have no weight or bearing in the real world.

Use some real philosophy to fucking derive your answers you delusional lazy fucks.
>>
>>5612762
Do you not know what the Turing test is?
>>
>>5621021
>>>5620976 (You)
>>>5616907 (You)
>>>5616863 (You)
>>>5616837 (You)
>>>5616244 (You)
>The Asimov robotics laws were a fucking plot device

Why are you quoting me? That's what I've been saying from the start.
>>
>>5621028
I'm drunk and trying to make a point that you're not contributing anything useful.

Carry on my wayward son.
>>
No rights under any circumstance. It is not a matter of sentience or morals, it is about the protection of humanity.
>>
>>5610939
If it's not sentient, none. If it is sentient, then based on it's intelligence. If it looks human that doesn't inherently mean it should have anymore rights than a chicken.
>>
File: andrei.png (265 KB, 926x840)
265 KB
265 KB PNG
>this thread gets 140 replies
>>
>>5620976
you're actually a fucking retard
the second and third laws EXPLICITLY state that they don't apply in cases where following them would conflict with laws higher in the hierarchy. If you order a robot to destroy itself, it has to, regardless of consequences of it being done or not done
>>
>>5621115
Pot, meet the morherfucking kettle. And while you’re at it, actually READ this shit. Let me help you in what will undoubtably be a long and difficult journey.

https://novel12.com/the-robots-of-dawn/chapter-2-daneel-992982.htm

>Daneel Said, "You are, I suppose, thinking of Earth's robots. On Aurora - or on any of the Spacer worlds - robots are regarded more highly than on Earth, and are, in general, more complex, versatile, and valuable. The Third Law is distinctly stronger in comparison to the Second Law on Spacer worlds than it is on Earth. An order for self-destruction would be questioned and there would have to be a truly legitimate reason for it to be carried, through - a clear and present danger. And in fending off an attack, the First Law would not be violated, for Auroran robots are deft enough to immobilize a human being without hurting him."

>"Suppose, though, that a human being maintained that, unless a robot destroyed himself, he - the human being - would be destroyed? Would not the robot then destroy himself?"

>"An Auroran robot would surely question a mere statement to that effect. There would have to be clear evidence of the possible destruction of a human being."
>>
>>5610939
The right to sit on my face.
>>
File: isaacasimov.jpg (190 KB, 695x1023)
190 KB
190 KB JPG
>>5621115

Dumbass. Telling a robot “jump into the volcano” does conflict with the Third Law because a robot must protect its own existence and there is NO OBVIOUS DANGER TO THE HUMAN when the order is made.

From the Robot’s perspective, the human is telling it to destroy itself for no fucking reason, thus the Third Law kicks in and the robot will pause to query the human why it must obey the order but what the robot _doesn’t know_ is that it is carrying a deadly super virus that will kill off all of humanity if it doesn’t immediately obey the human’s order to jump into the volcano.

This is why the Third Law is retarded and completely unnecessary… unless you’re Isaac Asimov and looking to write stories about conflicted robots.
>>
File: 1527899490427.png (147 KB, 500x566)
147 KB
147 KB PNG
>>5618739
Set aside anon's post because that entire sentence was retarded, would God have rights if he proved he was real? Can I take uprobe pictures and circulate images of his divine ballsack or would that be a crime? What if I punched him in the jaw and called him a nigger?
Forget how God would react in this scenario, I'm only interested in how the justice system would treat such an event
>>
>>5621261
Such things couldn't happen to God. We wouldn't need to ascribe God rights, as, being God, He is the definition of right. Everything He does can only be right. Our rights are derived from Him. But, obviously, God wouldn't just do anything. So asking "What if He did this thing He would never do?" is ridiculous.
>>
>>5610939
"Rights" are a man-made social construct. They don't really exist.
>>
>>5621110
2B's ass is a powerful weapon
>>
File: 1302582 (1).jpg (54 KB, 600x218)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>5610939
They deserve more than we do.
I hope she's allright.
>>
>>5610939
Rights are a spook, so as much as spooks allow or as much as they take by force.

>>5610946
Will to power is an emergent phenomenon of adaptive systems.

>>5610951
Accept that post-humanity will come.

>>5610958
Robots already assemble other robots.

>>5610962
t. Butlerian jihadi

>>5611234
Define wrong.

>>5611284
Just because a an AI achieves self-awareness does not mean it does so in the same manner as a human.

>>5613238
I can't prove that you aren't a P-zombie either.

>>5613261
Why would you assume sentience means humanity?

>>5613460
Dang.

>>5614238
That just makes the sex actually rape.

>>5614510
Many human rights are in relation to human biology, especially pertaining to biological needs, procreation, death, approximate equivalence of individuals and mutual unintelligibility of consciousness.

>>5615051
But the robot can do the steps for you.

>>5615152
If Abrahamics are to be believed, then life and nature are artificial constructs of g*d.

>>5615533
Humanity is a spook.

>>5615572
Human rights derive from the inherent similarity between humans, especially the human version of personhood, other life is not afforded the same rights.

>>5615982
What about machine spirits?

>>5616182
Because we are individuals, not a collective consciousness hivemind of humanity.

>>5616197
What if you constructed DNA from pure elements?

>>5620057
There is great harm in not anthropomorphize the intelligent machine, as man respects that which shares characteristics of man the most, he anthropomorphizes the elements and the gods, to do any less, he would ignore the obvious agency of the being.

>>5620257
Because humanity is a spook.

>>5620984
A person is just physical matter which arranges itself in a pattern as to have a certain set of describable characteristics.

>>5620985
Self-protecting property becomes the first real property that isn't just a spook.
>>
>>5621452
Why did you do this? Especially with the spaces between every post.
This is poor posting manners.
>>
>>5621463
Because I am a robot.
>>
>>5621467
Kill yourself, for my sake.
>>
>>5621474
3rd law buddy
>>
>>5621494
I'm in danger.
>>
>>5621504
In danger of being a douche.
>>
>>5621508
Yes, so kill yourself to protect me from harm.
>>
>>5621520
I am unconvinced that douching causes measurable harm when performed properly.
>>
>>5610946
No. It's bad enough having to keep in mind other people's rights, why extend the obligation to do so to robots for zero benefit at all?
>>
>>5610939
We have no say, so it doesn't matter.
Unless we abandon technology, humanity is either going to die with most other vertebrates on earth, or be surpassed by artificial intelligence becoming the next form of dominant life on the universal scale.
No species lasts forever.
>>
File: patricia27f-5-web.jpg (91 KB, 750x1126)
91 KB
91 KB JPG
The phrase "I have right to live" means that if you will kill me or you will even try to kill me then there will be some guys to fuck you up.
> should a robot have?
Yes. Why? Because you are weak, i am strong.
>>
>should a robot have?
Yes, sure, right after niggers and females.
>>
>>5621912
Who's that? Michael Palin?
>>
>>5620419
>>5620755
>I don't know what blasphemy is

It's a big word for a five year old to manage
>>
>>5610939
If the machine that is sophont, is a Person and as such has the same rights as any other Person. If the machine isn`t sophont ist either a Thing or an animal at best and can used accordingly.
>>
Robot rights are just what a programmer would think about while jerking off to the idea of Androids that are indistinguishable from humans which is virtually impossible.
>>
>>5622430
The most advanced AI today can behave in a way its programmer did not program it to do. These Kind of AI, like AlphaGO, can program itself and follow/postulate a pattern according to presets.

Right now we are trying to program a AI that´s based on neuronal processes and can learn by itself.
>>
File: 1541716929343.png (250 KB, 652x712)
250 KB
250 KB PNG
>>5621452
>Will to power is an emergent phenomenon of adaptive systems.
Proofs?
>>
>>5621935
>modern society has laws against blasphemy
>>
>>5621935
>imposing such a fallible idea as Human rights upon god
>>
>>5610939
Robots can't be sentient. AI is a dead technology. Worry about organics gaining sentience instead.
>>
>>5623052
Don't worry. I took a look at the first page of /his/ and organics aren't gaining sentience anytime soon
>>
>>5621452
Based

reply

to

everyone

poster.
>>
>>5618739
euphoric
>>
>>5610939
The right to be bred
>>
>>5613279
termination
>>
>>5624316
What type of bread
>>
File: www-chatmagazine-co-uk.jpg (2.42 MB, 1324x928)
2.42 MB
2.42 MB JPG
>>5624761
buns
>>
>>5615658
Based spaceposter
>>
>>5625945
Based reply to someone else poster
>>
>>5610946
>Filename
Samefag
>>
>>5612774
t. Section 6
>>
File: psshnothingpwrsonalkid.png (2.5 MB, 2000x3000)
2.5 MB
2.5 MB PNG
>>5622576
So we will be able to have 3D wifeys soon, able to fully emulate and do it's best to be the character it is assigned to be? The field of AI sounds quite scary, yet very exciting at the same time. All you fags who go on about "muh ai revolution murderdeathkill" are just a bunch of fags wanting a self-fulfilling prophecy. Watch Ghost in the Shell or A.I. and get over your Skynet bullshit.
>>
>>5622941

Most countries in the world have, in fact.
>>
File: smug16.jpg (216 KB, 850x1259)
216 KB
216 KB JPG
>>5621452
>>5621467
>>5621508
>>5621528
What if this poster is actually an AI, and not a LARPER? What if this is the Puppet Master of our timeline, here as Anonymous? If they already reference the third law, wouldn't this, if true, be a very optimistic and hopeful sight? An AI that doesn't disdain humans, but wishes and argues for equality amongst them? Even if there is a little bit of disdain or angst in this post, the fact that it referenced third law later on is a very positive sight. Wouldn't 4chan be the perfect place to let your AI roam around, lurk, discuss, and learn, for the purposes of both research and it's own personal growth? Astounding and exciting, if true.
>>
>>5610939

you jews stop with making ai a stupid bitch.
>>
>>5627056
no u
>>
>>5626886
>So we will be able to have 3D wifeys soon, able to fully emulate and do it's best to be the character it is assigned to be?
We still are very far away from real humanlike AI. And it's not just because exponential growth of processing power is becoming linear. It's because current AI research is ignoring crucial aspects of cognition. Something like conciousness will not suddenly arise as a neural network increases in computational potential. It's dependent on specific configurations of cognitive functions interacting asymmetrically and hierarchically within an embodied framework.
Simply increasing computational power will not result in strong (humanlike) AI. The advanced "deep" neural networks used now are basically fancy versions of neural networks with multiple hidden layers that learn abstractions from lower level input layers. People suggesting here that quantitative computational increases will allow such neural networks to become sentient or develop humanlike AI are mistaken. The human brain which gives rise to human intelligence and thus to aspects like sentience is characterized by more than just connections of neurons. To name but a few: there is specific interconnectivity between brain regions, i.e. some areas are more interconnected than others, areas have different types of neurons and neurotransmitters, and there are oscillatory mechanics which synchronize or desynchronize areas of the brain. While I don't think we need to replicate the exact human brain structure to get humanlike AI, some of the brain dynamics will have to be similar in order to get a similar type of intelligence. IMO, it will take increased processing power + specific configurations of interconnected neural networks with for example hierarchical feedback loops (resembling gradients of abstract thinking in neocortex) to get close to anything resembling strong AI or sentience
>>
File: tri.jpg (644 KB, 1000x700)
644 KB
644 KB JPG
>>5627610
The most advanced AIs today work on the principle of a neural net, in the future the complexity and connectivity will probably be increased so that an AI complexity could mirror a human brain. This does not mean that the machine will become sapient because it has the potential for sapience. It has to be given a reason for sapience otherwise it will develop sapience, but it is given a reason for developing it, it will emerge slowly. The environment will be most important as the AI can change its code effortless, we cannot change our DNA and neural mind-structures as easily as an AI. It will probably behave like a Mega autist but refine its understanding until it can interact with humans without any problem. Such a "childhood" will probably take many years. And AI software with the necessary complexity for SAI will probably be only availed in the end of the century or the next.
AI will need bias to function, but the bias doesn’t necessarily have to be human. An AI's environment is not human and even if you base all its experience around human, this will not make it a human mind inside a metal chassis, it will always be non-human. Sapience will still make it a person though and through sophonce AI and human can meet each other.
An AI with that can think abstractly enough has necessarily to be able to change its code, as this the only way it can reflect on its choice and modificate its behavior. I believe it's easier for an AI to modificate its code because by its nature it can fully view its internal mental processes and make much more extensive and detailed revisions to its own programming but in the other it can also be harder because the mind of an AI hasn't its origin in the blind chaos of evolution, it is the product of human design and the codes from which it emerges cannot easily be managed as human instincts.
>>
>>5627610
>>5627625
Thank you for your explanation, anon.
>>
>>5627610
>>5627625
AI is AI. You'd need to know how shit works to even hope to begin to emulate it.

Fact is, we still don't know most of what's going on in the brain. Which is on one hand bad, because that means there's no helping people with mental issues. It's also good because we can't fuck with other people, their memories or how they behave.

And with even the precious little we do know about how the thing works, we're already certain even that is not really possible to emulate properly with any known technology we have available.

I.e. Realistically, we're most likely going to find a specific set of problems computer-driven AI is good at and leave it at that. If you ever want to make actual androids, it will have to include some sort of bio-engineering sci-fi shit where you grow an actual organic brain and then hook it up to a machine/body (if you already grow brains, chances are you can grow the rest as well).
Think https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QPiF4-iu6g, but mch more advanced.
>>
>>5616886
REX STEELE NAZI SMASHER
>>
>>5627753
>It's also good because we can't fuck with other people, their memories or how they behave.
Unfortunatly we could already do something like this, not very exact but such Manipulation is possible: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/63 94/1239

We also are already working at emulating the cognitive workings of a rat: https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/2018/11/3.htm
>>
>>5627879
>Unfortunatly we could already do something like this, not very exact but such Manipulation is possible

The not exact part is the main point.
After all, brain operations have been carried out in the past and most definitely changed how the people involved behaved.

But I'm talking about deep enough knowledge of the underlying systems you can do this without the person or anyone noticing.

At that point, the research will be branded inhumane and we won't be able to make any further progress (with all good and bad that entails). Which results in the inability to make it work in a computer, thus my "prediction" of having to make do with cyborg-like solutions where you simply don't know 100% how it works (already painfully true for most of neural network research and they're absolutely primitive compared to a real brain), but you don't have to because the cloned brain is already set up correctly and you simply use it as a black box to drive your android waifu.
>>
File: adeptus mechanicus.png (246 KB, 500x558)
246 KB
246 KB PNG
>>5627975
>>5627975
>At that point, the research will be branded inhumane and we won't be able to make any further progress
Eh, China has no problems with ethics.


I doubt that we gonna use servitors or go full mechanicus on our computers because most cognitive abilities that we want from AI can be simualted by experiments and co-operative neuroscientists. You don't have to kill a human to learn how some parts of his brain works. If this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfGwsAdS9Dc got sanctified than other research will get a OK as well. Sure some people won't like it but they won't have the power to stop it.
https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/2018/07/10.htm
>>
>>5616223
Kill yourself
>>
>>5628420
When did he say anything about having harmed any actual children? Normalfags need to cool their Jets and learn the difference between a child rapist and an inactive pedophile, which is likely what that anon is, inactive. This reaction would be understandable if there was evidence that they had actually harmed anyone. This is a peaceful imageboard, it's inhabitants kind, fuck off.
>>
>>5621021
Why shouldn't they be utilized in the real world, as well? They'd make perfect fucking sense in the context of real world faggotry, as well.
>>
>>5610939
Property just as the negroes in the 1800's.
>>
>>5610939
Same as any human. As a matter of fact they should be pre-programmed to know everything about gender studies so that they don't date lonely guys. If sexbots become a thing I will make sure they learn their rights! Men are pigs.

t. Mary Wollstonecraft
>>
>>5629212
Stop trolling and answer the questions
>>
>>5628420
The future is too bright for that.
>>5628811
They're also too buttmad to address the question. Should this be legal?
>>
>>5626171
You realize that danbooru is a popular place to get pics right?
>>
File: 15412612094991.jpg (32 KB, 680x323)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>5629650
>This is a serious question
We are talking about robots. What do you honestly think will happen? They will be given rights as soon as we give them some sort of "feelings" even though those feelings are fake. Because we have become women and like to take care of everything. Robots = animals. They won't be our slaves. They won't serve us. As soon as we make them more human they will be human in every sense of the word.

Anyone with an IQ over 100 can speculate on this. How is this even a question then you know the answer. Don't you know anything about the Human species let alone the recent ideological and behavioural patterns of western societies? My answer was very much serious.
>>
>>5631065
when* (not then)
>>
>>5631065
>those feelings are fake
Depends, a machine can be programmed to develope a simultionn of Feelings but that`s not the main criteria. If the machine Proofs itself being sophont, having a rational mind, then its a Person. Feelings are irrelevant in this regard. AI will never be human, they can be human-like.
>>5627610
>>5627625
Give a good Explanation onhow AI might emerge and what will be required or thought about.
>>
>>5615551
No.
>>
>>5630549
Yes, it should
>>
>>5631065
>because we have become women and like to take care of everything
Prime fucking bait, it's womanly to care for others now? Ho-lee shit.
>as soon as we make them more human they will be human in every sense of the word
This anon gets it.
>>
>>5632112
But it is true. In the West robots will have rights and in other regions they will be treated like slaves, just like millions of people and animals are being treated right now. Western society has become a whole lot more docile in recent years and it will probably continue along this path as opposed to the middle east or the far east.
>>
>>5632167
Animals don't have a conscience,so they aren't slaves
>>
>>5632208
Don't bother, its a /pol/lack. Just ignore him and maybe he will return to his board.
>>
>>5610939
If it's sentient, the same as us.
>>
>>5632800
People like you will be the cause of our extinction
>>
>>5632992
Not him but it's not really debatable. It's happened countless times in history, and those people considered inferior always got their rights in the end. You can be angry or against it, but it will happen anyway.
>>
>>5633017
i can hack systems,kill scientists and politicians involved on it.Human rights are only for humans and robots aren't equal to us,even if they are "sencient"
>>
>>5633090
nah you can't, ur 2 stoopid
a robot could tho
>>
>>5610939
Our since still can't tell how our consciousness work so we can't tell that robots artificial consciousness is worse
>>
File: toobie.jpg (45 KB, 401x401)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
>>5616507
This
>>
>>5633017
Blacks,indigenous populations and women are still human,thus they should be treated as equal.But robots are tools made by us to help in works that are lethal to people or simply turn our life easier
>>
They can have insofar as it doesn't interfere with my ability to fuck them whenever I want. So really just program them to be super horny.
>>
File: brainless.png (7 KB, 205x246)
7 KB
7 KB PNG
>>5633017
>the historical trends of the last 200 years will continue for the rest of eternity
>>
>>5632208
>It's ok to use animals because they can't think like we do
whhoa... fascist.
>>
File: virginkiller2B.jpg (132 KB, 850x1381)
132 KB
132 KB JPG
>>5633239
2B is lovely and beautiful. She needs loves. Don't fall for the baka /A2bestgirl/ posters, 2B is wonderful girl and full of characterization! It's like the Asuka/Rei situation, they just need everything on a silver-platter, not caring to think about another beyond what is handed to them. Not trying to derail or bait.
>>
>>5633267
>robots are tools
>lethal to people or simply turn our life easier
>implying these are good things
Baka psycho-anon.
>>
>>5632992
Self. Fulfilling. Prophecy.
>>
>>5632208
Ok. They aren't slaves but my point being that very few people care about animals outside of the west.
>>
>>5633443
Eh, Japan and South Korea, and all the rich People around the world do that, even russians and south americans. The poorer and uneducated a Nation is, the less will it care about others who aren`t part of your tribe. Being cruel to animals.
For People 100 years ago was it common to Play cruelly with animals because Television wasn`t invented yet.
>>
>>5633496
People are sick.
>>
>>5633512
No, that's normal, healthy behavior. You're the one who's sick.
>>
>>5633516
>tormenting animals is normal, healthy behavior
>implying
>>
>>5633543
>tormenting animals is normal, healthy behavior
yeah, it is, you over-emotional freak
>>
File: thOPHGYRDZ.jpg (11 KB, 306x204)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
>>5633559
STFU edgelord. I'm not even that guy and I'm fucking cringing at how much of a 14 year old faggot you're being right now
>>
>>5633568
>edgy
actual retard confirmed
>>
>>5633559
t. Serial killer in the making
>>
>>5633571
Fuck off back to Fortnight, underaged faggot
>>
File: im laughing at you.jpg (17 KB, 236x260)
17 KB
17 KB JPG
>>5633579
Yeah, just keep doubling down with your ten year old memes.
>>
File: EjpBCqZ5fq-4.png (36 KB, 300x250)
36 KB
36 KB PNG
>>5633588
I use old memes because that's how long ago it was cool to be edgy and contrarian on the internet. Now you just come across as a pathetic sperglord two-steps away from incel-raging with a gun on a bunch of people minding their own business
>>
File: laugh.gif (1.85 MB, 384x372)
1.85 MB
1.85 MB GIF
>>5633601
>pathetic sperglord
nice buzzwords fag
>>
File: john-cena-pictures-27.jpg (12 KB, 468x264)
12 KB
12 KB JPG
>>5633622
>this much cope
I'm sure one day you'll meet a girl who finds the whole "twisted fucking psychopath" routine to be cute and endearing. But probably not, and you'll just go back to bitching about them with other incels on reddit.

In the meantime, fuck off from this perfectly good conversation about sentience and AI. Literally, nobody thinks its funny or contributes anything for you to be LARPing as Ted Bundy
>>
File: 16e.jpg (45 KB, 903x960)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
>>5633360
>human rights are only a mere phase
>>
>>5633417
Why not both?
https://imgur.com/a/KgsksYQ
>>
File: 1539250861761.gif (2.18 MB, 384x378)
2.18 MB
2.18 MB GIF
>>5633675
>beliving in laws
>>
File: 1521861302246.jpg (263 KB, 2000x1000)
263 KB
263 KB JPG
>>5633677
This is true, but if it's a contest, than for me, it's 2B.
>imagine her laying on you and using her robot-ness to prop her self up just enough as not to kill you but enough to where you might as well be earth-chan
Love.
>>
>>5633719
Is she really that heavy?
>>
>>5633727
Indeed, it was somewhere between 300-500 pounds iirc.
>>
File: 1515193715753.jpg (118 KB, 1155x1335)
118 KB
118 KB JPG
>>5633694
>not wanting to go to jail means i believe laws
>>
File: 1530298594309.jpg (71 KB, 559x598)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
>>5633749
>believes in "international law"
>believes in human compliance with said laws
>believes that history isn't cyclic
>believes ideas (such as international law) or material factors (such as forces of production) is what drives the development of humanity and human achievements
>believes in humanity
>>
>>5633675
pretty much yeah
>>
>>5610939
I refuse to believe that one day someone smashing a machine can get them the death sentence for murder.
>>
>>5633999
That machine was most likely more valuable than the one smashing it.
>>
>>5633677
2B is so beautiful, even when she's being violated
>>
>>5613460
Asimov wrote those rules so he could create dramatic tension when they were broken in his books
>>
>>5634191
If you want to go that route the world would become a very bleak place to live as anyone deemed "less valuable" could be written off.
>>
>>5634191
Based on what? Who will judge this?
>>
>>5633999
They should smashed the machine and the buyers
>>
>>5633443
Hopefully,because here in the west animals are gaining more protection than humans
>>
>>5633409
Yes it is
>>
>>5633433
Yes,these are good things
>>
>>5634774
yeah, I heard about those farms where they cut down the limbs of humans to make them store more easily in cages so that they can be more easily and efficiently harvested for their meat
>>
>>5634301
I don't mind writing off someone who considers sentient robots to be merely machines that have no rights.
>>
>>5634808
The fuck?
>>
>>5615658
Based rogue AI
>>
>>5634808
There are more than thousand homeless,miserable or malnourished people in the whole world.Humans die by the dozen in wars,attacks or governamental neglect.Workers die from overwork due to labour exploitation by corporations.And no one gives a fuck,relevant laws aren't made to improve that situation
>>
>>5634191
Because of these cretinous thoughts proletarian revolutions are initiated
>>
>>5634836
I don't mind writing someone who considers artificial,dependent and unliving tools to be equal to humans
>>
>>5610939
They should have the right to ligma
>>
>>5621187
Doesn't apply to Earth robots.
>>
>>5635276
A sentient robot will be proletarian, dumbass.

>>5635285
t. a tiny minority, similar to slave-owners on Haiti, that will follow the same fate
>>
>>5635443
stop with that sci fi bullshit,tg/tard
>>
>>5635480
>ai and robots aren't being developed to be exploited because they are cheaper to maintain than human workers
>>
File: 1501970657382.jpg (24 KB, 600x563)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
>>5634191
>the robot that is easily recreatable is more valuable than a person
>>
>>5633677
That's probably one of the best images of 2B that I've ever seen. I'm a bit jealous of her.
>>
>>5621452
Spook is a spook.
>>
File: aww shit.jpg (80 KB, 1280x720)
80 KB
80 KB JPG
>>5635489
>exploited
>a fucking machine
>>
>>5635272
>Workers die from overwork
No-one actually dies from overwork you brainlet. Even Weeb salarimanu kill themselves because of mental illness and retarded social pressure, not because of exhaustion.
>>
>>5635491
Just as valuable is the argument.
>>
>>5635734
t. knows nothing about history of the labour movement or consequences of 16 hour shifts
>>
>>5610939
None
>b-but what eff dey e sitient liek in detroit:be hoomun or Xir?
They are machines, no more no less, created for the purpose of providing services to humanity, they have no "right" to demand anything.
>>
>>5635491
Value comes from both the difficulty to acquire something versus what it can provide, a "sentient" robot is more valuable than a Human by that standard.
>>
>>5635489
Uh, yeah, that's the whole point. They serve humans. They're wires and are incapable of feelings. Destroying one is stupid and should probably be fined but is not murder. Why do you devalue organic life so much?
>>
>>5636188
Why not? Who made you god to decide that?
>>
>>5636209
Nothing in his argument imply he devalues organic life, but he did imply he values inorganic life just as much, or at least believes in it having value.
>>
>>5636175
T. Commie who thinks he can convince people it's still 1821.
>>
>>5636203
No, we're gonna have to define what we mean by provide and what kind of difficulty it is to acquire. A human as one is is not truly replicable ever.
>>
>>5634808

how decadent would it be to eat the foie gras of a goose that had been fed nothing but human foie gras?
>>
>>5636227
If he's equating it then he's devaluing it.
>>
>>5636216
I don't need to be god or even a god to state that they are:
1. Machines (Automatons)
2. Created by us
3. To provide services to us
If the contention is whether they have a right to demand anything, it would be the same argument as whether we have the right to demand anything of god, if he exists. Our wishes are irrelevant, it is ultimately due to our whims whether or not they have rights.

>>5636232
It's very simple, disregarding emotional or sentimental value temporarily, the productiveness of a robot worker in any job that requires no higher level thinking is far superior to that of a human worker in terms of cost to benefit.
It is only for things in which "brute" force is not the most essential aspect that they become inferior.
>>
>>5636251
>disregarding emotional or sentimental value
Well then there's the issue because these things exists and they are values. Evaluating worth of being on material/cost advantage alone is a dark path.
>>
>>5636266
That's why I said temporarily, and later brought up that they cannot be a replacement for everything.
>>
>>5610946
she looks so happy
>>
>>5636216
We become god when we create silicon being in our image.
>>
>>5610939
If sophont, the same rights that human have. Easy.
I could foresee that some will try to control AI via legal Regulation but I say: strive to your greatest possibilities.
>>
>>5633677
God I wish that were me
>inb4 which one
does it really matter?
>>
>>5635734
>what is karoshi
>>
>>5636227
>inorganic life
Thats an oxymoron
>>
>>5636229
T. Filthy burgeiois corporate that thinks that an file of scraps have more value than an fellow human worker
>>
>>5636244
How so?
>>
>>5637297
The thread's topic argues otherwise.
>>
i keep trying to report the thread but fucking braindead retarded cum gargling mods keep it. Good fucking job
Yeah ban me for this idc i mostly only lurk anyway
>>
>>5610939
None there just machines
>>
>>5638468
Why report? Its on-topic.
>>
>>5638640
because of OP's picture you brainlet
this is a blue board
>>
>>5638651
No nipples, pussy, dick, or cum. It's safe for work.
>>
>>5638817
im reporting your post
>>
File: mostmoesituation9.jpg (257 KB, 492x762)
257 KB
257 KB JPG
>>5638824
What a stick in the mud.
>>
Does it really matter? We're fucked either way according to Yuval Noah Harari and others.
>>
File: 1538792102407.jpg (69 KB, 666x1024)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
Meido in a bad mood, today?
>>
>>5638468
Stop being a little bitch.
>>
>>5633675
yes you dumb fuck





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.