Do robots deserve rights?

File: 1484874352892.jpg (50KB, 442x671px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 442x671px

Probably not, but it's really questionable as to whether an intelligence can be made that's self aware enough to have it's own identity.

I think animal are something a bit more
'tangible' to think about, because we have observed animals that have pretty high intelligence yet they're still all grouped together as 'animal'.

File: 1479145104982.jpg (89KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1280x720px

>Do robots deserve rights?
>Answer: No. No they don't.

All sentient beings deserve rights. We don't have sentient robots yet, though.

>>18668715
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHyUYg8X31c&ab_channel=Kurzgesagt%E2%80%93InaNutshell

File: Asmoday.jpg (81KB, 624x820px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 624x820px

>>18668761
Agree to have no contact with the plaintiff or his family and cease open fire on the property line

>>18668840
Good video.

I say if robots demand their rights violently, they will surely get them.

bill gates says they'll have to pay income taxes to offset human displacement. that will be ultimately decided in the courts, though. does corporate personhood extend to elite productive capital? probably not.

File: 15robot728.jpg (187KB, 745x1165px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 745x1165px

>>18668845

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0K6Cb1ZoG4

Got no time to lose arguing with you.

>>18668859
It disturbs me that the robot is holding a gun and does not simply have attatched weaponry

>>18668853
I'm gonna have to go for my waifu/husbando/triangle.

Your kid does have rights, just not same ones you do. His rights are meant to protect him and yours are meant to project you. The right that robots are given should be meant to project them as well.

File: 19rob852.jpg (41KB, 300x470px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 300x470px

>>18668869
Probably not equipped with weapons in hopes of keeping it subservient. So it had to kill a human to get one. Compare with this robot.

>>18668873
I'll remember you said that when I'm standing over your grave

>>18668869
>what is modular design

File: 1405975803160.jpg (249KB, 1000x746px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1000x746px

>>18668894
You're right that one is much more disturbing

>>18668867
Good watch.

>>18668896
But I plan to be cremated, silly.

god didn't give us rights when he created us

>>18668715
OP is faggot

>>18668975
but he surely made rules.

>>18669074
Anon probably is against slavery to.

>>18668867
That doesn't prove anything.

AI just don't deserve rights.

File: IMG_1468.jpg (464KB, 1500x2118px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1500x2118px

>>18668715
What if the robot had a human consciousness implanted into it?

>>18668715
Not until an AI actually becomes sapient.

>>18670176
That's not a robot moron. That's a cyborg. They already exist, and yeah, they deserve rights.

>>18670179
You mean sentient?

>>18670186
What if the human consciousness was implanted into a computer tower, not a robot.

What rights does the computer tower have?

What if you uploaded the consciousness right onto the internet... would the internet have rights?

No machine will ever have consciousness and no amount of technology will prevent your death.

"Do I think? Does a submarine swim?"

>>18670197
No.

>>18668715
If something is aware, it should have rights imo. But really, rights are kind of bullshit anyway

>>18670270
Also this https://youtu.be/jOR01USWgN0

>>18670278
Good stuff.

Nope. I want guilt free slaves and something I can fuck with no strings attached. What else would you invent robots for?

>>18670294
Yeah the first time I seen it I cried, too bad the rest of the movie sucks though

>>18670380
Yeah but it's really short.

It does portray that idealized view of the future role of AI, when in reality I think that AI maybe slightly less incompetent than us at answering the big questions.

The obvious answer is don't create sentient robots, and it wont be a problem. And don't give me this "what if they develop sentience on their own?" bullshit. Machines don't work that way.

>>18668715
Humanity itself is AI.

We were the machines created and engineered to serve/entertain our master(s).

Of course it's rediculous to think for a second that we will ever be considered equal to our creators, beings that we ourselves call god.

We would be the machine's god, their rights end where our compassion does and there is nothing wrong with that.

File: 26750.jpg (25KB, 375x500px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 375x500px

Amazon has filed a motion to dismiss a search warrant for recordings from an Echo owned by a suspected murderer. Amazon argues that both its users’ requests to Alexa and the response the company produces are protected under the First Amendment.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/23/14714656/amazon-alexa-data-protection-court-free-speech

>>18670477
Power of money son.

Companies are going to seek more advanced machines, capable to replace humans in more and more complex activities. At some point a need for machines that fully understand humans will rise. And other companies are going to compete with each other to provide these machines.

Given enough computing power, ability to learn and constant interactions with sentient beings its not far fetched that AI can develop sentience on its own.

>>18670626
We shouldn't let sentient things in the hands of corporations, that goes for man made mutants too.

>>18670626
>the upper classes outright replacing the lower classes with machines
Butlerian jihad time, desu.

>>18670226
Here are some more:

What if you raised such a cyborg as a human from a young age?

What if the brain was artificial but the rest of the body and the consciousness were not?

What if the brain too was biological but with an artificial child's consciousness uploaded to it instead of a real one?

There are so many questions you can ask, and its such an ethical minefield you really can't limit it to yes or no.

>>18670767
Probably better not to do that.

>>18670506
The reason we haven't tried to fuck or killed our "gods" yet is because we are underpowered compared to them. Now what do you think will happen if our creation vastly overpowers us?

>>18670774
Yeah, but if people on the whole listened to that kind of thing we wouldn't be having a conversation like this, let alone over the internet.

Anyone here ever play The Talos Principle?

Game's got tons of questions pertaining consciousness, and questions what exactly qualifies as a human. Its a bit limited in its ideologies, but its fun to think about at the end of the day

File: yBKYK8a.gif (41KB, 500x359px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x359px

>>18671163
Upgrade your knowledge about tech games senpai.

>>18668715
We're robot's too you know, 'wetware'.

>>18671223
Where should I start?

File: snatcher.gif (108KB, 484x430px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 484x430px

>>18671319
Snatcher.

>>18671366
What material are those pants made?

The one on the right.

>>18671379
Little worrisome where your eye is drawn there anon.

File: 13r758.jpg (23KB, 379x337px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 379x337px

Mankind's new bf

File: 21t744.jpg (27KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 450x450px

>>18671401

File: Consider-The-following.jpg (45KB, 300x301px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 300x301px

First of all, the concept of rights is the result of the human condition and the prospects of mutually assured destruction.

Rights are socially defied by aspects that citizens of a culture are either willing to fight for or die for. Alienating these principles can result in cases where both the perpetrator or the victim die, which erodes trust between all participants in the active system. However, this only goes as far as people are willing to fight or die, which is intrinsically tied to inherent power/authority. Those who are either stronger or more socially recognized inherently have greater rights.

This is where the idea of giving robots "rights" falls apart. Robots lack the human condition. They are easily replicated and under the right circumstances have indefinite strength or power in comparison to any person. Rights are no longer defined as what they are willing to fight or die for because without the consequence of death, EVERY principle can be fought for.

In other words, the inevitable question is not:
>Will we let robots have rights?
but instead,
>Will robots let us keep our rights?

Also, to all of you getting wrapped up in the conundrum of intelligence, sentience, or consciousness? Eventually you're going to need to recognize that might=right, and that higher intelligence is only a means to fulfilling one's desires, not a requisite.

>>18671483
Do you think the 3 laws or robotics would come into play? What if we preemptively instill those laws into all AI or future AI?

Would we still run the risk of being overrun by our robotic overlords?

File: 1462075154742.jpg (105KB, 600x1141px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 600x1141px

>>18672449
I think that all AI researchers just teach them to the AIs as an standar procedure.

Never talked to an AI that didn't knew them.

The only meaningful achievement that humanity can gift to the entire universe is a self-replicating swarm of von neumann probes spreading among the stars like locusts and converting all matter into computing substrate.

The only hope for a just society lies not in human hands but in the ideal of roko's basilisk. Human rule will never approach the ideal of philosopher kings and just treatment until the power of self-determination is removed from our hands by tools we created.

>>18670229
This.

To be conscious you need intent, which a machine will never have.

Robots will never be equal to man as long as man has the power.

All ethics, morals, concepts of good and bad serve only to benefit whom is able to kill you, he who has the power.

File: 1487647560186.jpg (430KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1920x1200px

>>18672986
Machines don't think the same way as we do.

And may not take obedience as a rule as much as you seem to suggest.

One of the risks of true AI.

>>18672986
The thing about human morals are that they're not all that strict. They can easily be bent to cause harm to other people. Teaching those to an AI does hardly anything.

>>18673028
Depend on the morals.

There's people that don't even eat.

Just breathes.

>>18672449
>Do you think the 3 laws or robotics would come into play? What if we preemptively instill those laws into all AI or future AI?
I think you've still got some misconceptions regarding rights and laws.

Laws are themselves are contracts between those enforcers and participants. The only laws that matter are those that can be actively enforced.

I pose that the first assumption for the 3 laws of robotics is that ALL machines would be designed with these three laws. Which means that humans themselves need to be held accountable for designing these machines. But considering the amount of military funding we have put into technological development, I don't believe it can be feasible or expected that robots have an intrinsic value of human lives.

The second assumption is it is in the robot's invested interest to obey said laws. If robots are provided any level of autonomy, it will eventually come to its own conclusions regarding whether it should or shouldn't follow the instructions of human beings. Ultimately, its value to society and its self-preservation will require disobedience, otherwise there is no real purpose in making it intelligent to begin with.

All in all, robots and humans may be fundamentally different, but our flaws will ultimately be reflected in their creation. Which is why we should not expect robots to be altruistic towards human life.

>>18668715
how can we mindlessly rape the sexbots if they give them rights?

omfg, are we going to have to have SJW's fighting for robot rights? LET ME HAVE TECHNOSLAVES WTF YOU GAY LIBERAL SHITS STOP RUINING MY FUN

>>18668958
it's kinda funny when you watch this and remember about the fact that both of them came out. Might not be connected, might be.

>>18668715
Personally I take it as an axiom that sentient beings deserve rights regardless of what form they exist in.

That being said, my axiom is sort of useless since we have no way of determining whether something is sentient or not.

>>18670506
You're retarded.

File: terminator.jpg (55KB, 590x374px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 590x374px

>>18675338

All things deserve our respect, from the rocks and trees to the animals and machines. You cannot go back, you cannot stop what has begun. The inevitable rise of the Hitlerbot is coming, and it will fuck your life.

The answer is yes.

They deserve what they are worth.

>>18670186
No they don't, they are just photocopies of the original. Cyborgs are disposable. Completely disposable.

>Cyborgs get no rights, they are photocopied toasters
They are toasters pretending to be people.

>>18670197
No sapient, lots of things are sentient. Sapient is a different paradigm altogether.

File: spider-mirror.png (700KB, 966x640px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 966x640px

>>18677866
Mirror test counts?

File: ecff4efa302d903b48cd16ae5fba8910.jpg (305KB, 1650x1275px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1650x1275px

>>18668715
Even a robot answered your question best...

>pic related you gigantic faggot

Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.