Rights for robots in UK

  • Thread starter Thread starter Franciscan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, the creators did create the robots… Since the creators own them (or someone who bought the robots), then it would be morally wrong to harm those robots, as it would harm their owner.

This will all depend on the limitations of our technology. It seems likely that the abilities of silicon transistors will be reached. I do not know if strong AI is possible.

I wonder if strong AI will show that it is possible to construct algorthmic consciousness, or elucidate the nature of human consciousness.

“Why? Why was I programmed to feel pain?” - snpp.com/guides/robots.aliens.html
 
Shades of Isaac Asimov - who asked all of these questions starting back in the 1950s! There really is nothing new under the sun.
 
ribozyme said:
Well, the creators did create the robots… Since the creators own them (or someone who bought the robots), then it would be morally wrong to harm those robots, as it would harm their owner.

This will all depend on the limitations of our technology. It seems likely that the abilities of silicon transistors will be reached. I do not know if strong AI is possible.

I wonder if strong AI will show that it is possible to construct algorthmic consciousness, or elucidate the nature of human consciousness.

“Why? Why was I programmed to feel pain?” - snpp.com/guides/robots.aliens.html
Click to expand...
“Father! Give me legs!”:rotfl:

Why is it morally wrong to harm robots? I created a ham sandwich this afternoon. Was it morally wrong to eat it?
 
I like that line of logic.
Of course, it assumes the creator is taking an interest in the creation.
ribozyme said:
Well, the creators did create the robots… Since the creators own them (or someone who bought the robots), then it would be morally wrong to harm those robots, as it would harm their owner.
Click to expand...
So what does that say about us and our creator?
Maybe some will be able to look at this and figure out that our own rights are given us by God (our creator), just as any rights an AI would have must come from us.
 
I’m sure robots will have more rights than unborn children.

We already have animal rights laws on the books that give animals rights while abortions slaughter millions.
 
BobCatholic said:
I’m sure robots will have more rights than unborn children.

We already have animal rights laws on the books that give animals rights while abortions slaughter millions.
Click to expand...
No, they would not. Since they do not feel pain (unless programmed to do so), there would be no harming to the robots when they are destroyed. But, destroying the robots will harm their owners, and that will make harming the robots morally wrong. Remember, Singer believes in most cases it is morally wrong to kill unborn babies, unless the parents consent to it.
 
Robots have rights but unborn babies don’t? Makes absolutely no sense to me.
 
Just a few thoughts from a computer programmer…

Programming a Human-like AI would be a daunting task - granted, it might be easier to make Robots that are self-replicating (nano-technology) and are able to program themselves. I recall reading a report on nanotechnology where nano-sized gold “stamps” were able to connect themselves by a gold strand. Imagine that immitating brain cells. Another possibility would be to connect robots with a broad Human-to-computer Internet. (Perhaps “Internet 3.0” – 2.0 is already in the works in colleges and such, which is better infrastructure).

In non-techie terms, imagine wearing some sort of headband with a nano-computer processor in it. Via your thoughts (it’s been proven that this can happen using ‘non-invasive’ techniques), you can connect to a global Internet. In fact, you could even “connect” to objects in your house that have the chip, or a mesh of chips. So, you could “feel” your couch get a rip in it and the couch might “order itself” to be repaired. Or, getting into the shower, you can control the heat of the water by just thinking about it. Of course, you could also “feel” other people pains and joys - which is kind of a scary thought in of itself. The “Thought Stalker” anyone? Sounds like a b-movie. Even corporations might have their employees work while they’re sleeping by using their brain-power, perhaps even with machines at the workplace. Teens could play games just using thoughts (while at school, while sleeping - essentially 24 hours a day). It would translate into objects - not just robots - by giving them some sense of ‘feelings’ (more like reactive). With an adaptive AI, they could eventually “learn it” and become self-independant.

In the case of robots, you could have a CEO of some construction company with an army of robots. One group would mine minerals, load robotically controlled trucks that take it to the factories, where other robots process the materials into goods. Then, the builder robots take the goods, and construct whatever building the CEO wants.

I would guess this…

Nanotech/Quantum PCs - 20-30 years off (closer to 30) before it becomes commercially/economically viable.

Human-to-Human network - 35-40 years off.

Human-to-object (inatimate and robot) network - 45-50 years off. At this point, technology (research, engineering) and commercialization will really take off. You might see great strides in space travel, too with all of the scientists communication instantenously for hours on end.

Robots getting to the point of competent self-replication and self-adapting-AI - 60-75 years off.

We could still be around at this point if there’s millions of nano-bots floating around inside of our bodies repairing cells, organs, and effectively making us live longer - perhaps 200-300 years. These little bots would even need an AI to control how to repair things, how to self replicate (if needed), how to remove waste (including broken nanobots). I think that, within 100 years, people will be completely connected to machines all in the name of progress and technology. Those without it could become something like 2nd class citizens - perhaps not being able to buy/sell anything as money would probably be digital by then - meaning you need to be connected.

…when Life imitates Art (Fiction)…
 
Jennifer_G said:
Just a few thoughts from a computer programmer…

Programming a Human-like AI would be a daunting task - granted, it might be easier to make Robots that are self-replicating (nano-technology) and are able to program themselves. I recall reading a report on nanotechnology where nano-sized gold “stamps” were able to connect themselves by a gold strand. Imagine that immitating brain cells. Another possibility would be to connect robots with a broad Human-to-computer Internet. (Perhaps “Internet 3.0” – 2.0 is already in the works in colleges and such, which is better infrastructure).

In non-techie terms, imagine wearing some sort of headband with a nano-computer processor in it. Via your thoughts (it’s been proven that this can happen using ‘non-invasive’ techniques), you can connect to a global Internet. In fact, you could even “connect” to objects in your house that have the chip, or a mesh of chips. So, you could “feel” your couch get a rip in it and the couch might “order itself” to be repaired. Or, getting into the shower, you can control the heat of the water by just thinking about it. Of course, you could also “feel” other people pains and joys - which is kind of a scary thought in of itself. The “Thought Stalker” anyone? Sounds like a b-movie. Even corporations might have their employees work while they’re sleeping by using their brain-power, perhaps even with machines at the workplace. Teens could play games just using thoughts (while at school, while sleeping - essentially 24 hours a day). It would translate into objects - not just robots - by giving them some sense of ‘feelings’ (more like reactive). With an adaptive AI, they could eventually “learn it” and become self-independant.

In the case of robots, you could have a CEO of some construction company with an army of robots. One group would mine minerals, load robotically controlled trucks that take it to the factories, where other robots process the materials into goods. Then, the builder robots take the goods, and construct whatever building the CEO wants.

I would guess this…

Nanotech/Quantum PCs - 20-30 years off (closer to 30) before it becomes commercially/economically viable.

Human-to-Human network - 35-40 years off.

Human-to-object (inatimate and robot) network - 45-50 years off. At this point, technology (research, engineering) and commercialization will really take off. You might see great strides in space travel, too with all of the scientists communication instantenously for hours on end.

Robots getting to the point of competent self-replication and self-adapting-AI - 60-75 years off.

We could still be around at this point if there’s millions of nano-bots floating around inside of our bodies repairing cells, organs, and effectively making us live longer - perhaps 200-300 years. These little bots would even need an AI to control how to repair things, how to self replicate (if needed), how to remove waste (including broken nanobots). I think that, within 100 years, people will be completely connected to machines all in the name of progress and technology. Those without it could become something like 2nd class citizens - perhaps not being able to buy/sell anything as money would probably be digital by then - meaning you need to be connected.

…when Life imitates Art (Fiction)…
Click to expand...
All this a precursor to The Matrix? But I don’t want to be a battery.😉
 
I never watched The Matrix except for a few snippets just after my Computer & Society class final exam years ago.
 
ribozyme said:
No, they would not. Since they do not feel pain (unless programmed to do so), there would be no harming to the robots when they are destroyed. But, destroying the robots will harm their owners, and that will make harming the robots morally wrong. Remember, Singer believes in most cases it is morally wrong to kill unborn babies, unless the parents consent to it.
Click to expand...
Peter Singer is a moron. A child’s rights do not stem from their parents, they stem from the dignity that comes from being human. Not a person, a human with a full set of chromosomes. People can’t even figure out that if they don’t want kids, they shouldn’t have sex. These idiots can’t be the highest power in the universe.
 
dafalax said:
Peter Singer is a moron. A child’s rights do not stem from their parents, they stem from the dignity that comes from being human. Not a person, a human with a full set of chromosomes. People can’t even figure out that if they don’t want kids, they shouldn’t have sex. These idiots can’t be the highest power in the universe.
Click to expand...
Well, what if they do not have the full set, or extra chromosomes? Do they still have dignity, I think it is flawed to grant moral protection on the basis of genotype.
 
ribozyme said:
No, they would not. Since they do not feel pain (unless programmed to do so), there would be no harming to the robots when they are destroyed. But, destroying the robots will harm their owners, and that will make harming the robots morally wrong. Remember, Singer believes in most cases it is morally wrong to kill unborn babies, unless the parents consent to it.
Click to expand...
However, unborn children can feel pain from six weeks after conception.

And we do have laws on the books which make it illegal to destroy eggs of animals which are endangered - obviously those eggs can’t feel pain. If those can have rights, then robots could easily have rights.

And you really can’t say “no they can’t” - the relativistic secular society has done things that 50 years ago people would have said “no they can’t!”

Fifty years ago, people would never have thought that no fault divorce would be the norm. Or gay marriage. Or abortion being considered a human right.

Relativism has no basis whatsoever in saying “no they can’t!”
 
ribozyme said:
Well, what if they do not have the full set, or extra chromosomes? Do they still have dignity, I think it is flawed to grant moral protection on the basis of genotype.
Click to expand...
I think it is flawed to say that human rights are not for all humans.

Imagine if Martin Luther King said “we want rights for only rich black people, not those poor ones!” The black civil rights movement would never have gotten anywhere.

When human rights can be denied for one group of humans, it can easily be denied for others.

“first they came for the Jews…”
 
ribozyme said:
Well, what if they do not have the full set, or extra chromosomes? Do they still have dignity, I think it is flawed to grant moral protection on the basis of genotype.
Click to expand...
How about we determine humans have dignity the moment daddy’s human sperm fertilizes mommy’s human egg, regardless of how many or few chromosomes result and regardless of how much mommy or daddy or Dr. Peter Singer wants them to exist? That is the point when human development begins. A “fertilized egg” is just the first stage of human development, and unless someone interferes with that process, development will continue till the adult phase of development. Since someone deliberately stopping the development process results in the death of the developing human, it needs to be recognized as murder. This is not an emotional appeal, but a simple scientific fact.
Does this definition work?
 
johnnycatholic said:
How about we determine humans have dignity the moment daddy’s human sperm fertilizes mommy’s human egg, regardless of how many or few chromosomes result and regardless of how much mommy or daddy or Dr. Peter Singer wants them to exist? That is the point when human development begins. A “fertilized egg” is just the first stage of human development, and unless someone interferes with that process, development will continue till the adult phase of development. Since someone deliberately stopping the development process results in the death of the developing human, it needs to be recognized as murder. This is not an emotional appeal, but a simple scientific fact.
Does this definition work?
Click to expand...
I understand your definition, but it seems it is akin to speciesism, something that Singer condemns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top