Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    Presumably they would create themselves for the same reasons we procreate. Why can't AI be brought into the rich world of life creation and sentient relationships?
    How can they create themselves when they don't exist? Some non-machine has to create the first one. Where would the parts come from?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stefano865)
    :bl:

    Rights For Fruit and Vegetables.
    Quite! They should be saved from the iniquities of vegan cruelty.

    While we're on the subject of rights, I've noticed that a lot of house roofs are neglected and left outside to suffer in the rain and snow. Many are exploited just to save selfish people from getting wet. We must give them rights too.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    How can they create themselves when they don't exist? Some non-machine has to create the first one. Where would the parts come from?
    I'm not trying to suggest some sort of harmony between sentient robots and humans would occur overnight.

    Obviously they would come about out of the desire for humans to make increasingly sophisticated machines and would start as possessions/slaves. There would probably be some sort of revolution and warring before things sorted themselves out.

    The discussion was about morals regarding sentient robots, not necessarily practicalities of how they would come to exist.

    Incidentally, they could also be placed on the level of animals, as they are sentient, and this would allow ownership and such, while still giving them a reasonable level of rights. That said, they're probably comparable to slavery.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    they're probably comparable to slavery.
    They are machines. They must be bought, maintained and, eventually, destroyed.

    Liberal thinking can be very woolly sometimes.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    They are machines. They must be bought, maintained and, eventually, destroyed.

    Liberal thinking can be very woolly sometimes.
    There is no reason they have to be bought. Created? Yes, Bought? No.

    As for maintained and destroyed, why do you think we have hospitals, gyms and funeral homes?

    I'm not going to disagree that there are differences between the two, but they are fairly analogous.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    There is no reason they have to be bought. Created? Yes, Bought? No.

    As for maintained and destroyed, why do you think we have hospitals, gyms and funeral homes?

    I'm not going to disagree that there are differences between the two, but they are fairly analogous.
    Why would any factory make a robot if it could not sell it? The costs would be very high.

    How many hospitals can mend machines?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No, a party for one small topic never does well. This is why the greens have had to expand beyond the environment.

    Greens are probably your best bet
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Why would any factory make a robot if it could not sell it? The costs would be very high.

    How many hospitals can mend machines?
    Perhaps they will be produced by the government to work? Perhaps the first sentient robots will make the future sentient robots - they don't necessarily need to be made in a factory. The costs are high for children, but we make them.

    You're being ridiculous with the hospitals remark, you know I was referring to the fact that hospitals and gyms "maintain" humans. A mechanics or similar does the same for machines.

    Likewise both eventually stop functioning and get recycled.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    Perhaps they will be produced by the government to work? .
    So you think the government should be allowed to do things that are immoral for others to do? Have you thought that through?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So you think the government should be allowed to do things that are immoral for others to do? Have you thought that through?
    Why is it immoral? We wouldn't produce them to put them onto some sort of robot benefits. It's perfectly possible for humans to work without it being immoral, so I don't see how having robots work is immoral. You're making the assumption that the government would own them.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    There, to me, is no morality involved. If a machine has been created with artificial intelligence and/or artificial sentience it is still a machine. It has no rights whatever; it is owned; it functions.

    You are saying that human safety should be compromised in order to save machines from destruction or damage.
    It's worth noting that we are both created and we are machines. What makes an artificial sentience different to a biological one?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    Why is it immoral? We wouldn't produce them to put them onto some sort of robot benefits. It's perfectly possible for humans to work without it being immoral, so I don't see how having robots work is immoral. You're making the assumption that the government would own them.
    If they have rights they cannot be owned. They are owned at the moment they are created.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    If they have rights they cannot be owned. They are owned at the moment they are created.
    By that logic am I owned the moment I am created? Incidentally I do have rights also (at the moment anyway).

    I'm not sure why you struggle so much with this concept.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    It's worth noting that we are both created and we are machines. What makes an artificial sentience different to a biological one?
    While I accept that the word "machine" is used of humans to describe their physical characteristics sometimes, we are not really machines (which are artificially designed, created and assembled by humans).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    By that logic am I owned the moment I am created?
    No. You are a human.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    No. You are a human.
    Right, well clearly there is no point furthering this discussion. Apparently in your mind a machine can never be equal to a human regardless of any level of similarity and commonality.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam9317)
    I'm sure the greens provide this
    :lol:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    Didn't monster raving loony provide this when they had a cat as their leader?
    RIP Catmando.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    While I accept that the word "machine" is used of humans to describe their physical characteristics sometimes, we are not really machines (which are artificially designed, created and assembled by humans).
    Except that the definition of a machine is something which converts energy into mechanical energy which means that we are a machine. You are talking about robots and androids.

    Let me pose this question to you: if an alien species came to earth would you say that "they are not human so they have no rights" or "they are a living sentient being so should be treated like a human"? I'm going to assume that you would say the latter. So my question would then be what makes a group of sentient robots and androids any diffent, they would have minds of their own and maybe even feelings. Would you not consider them a species? And a species which is self contious and sentient but forced to do tasks against its will, would that not be considered slavary?

    And then you have a whole new question about what you define as artificial. The official definition of artificial is
    made or produce by human beings rather than occurring naturally
    Now this strikes me as odd. When an ant builds a nest, or a turmite a mound we call this natural. Even when a chimpanzee makes rudimentary tools this is natural yet when we make something it is "artificial" as if we ourselves are not part of nature. Personally I would argue that if a turmite mound or a birds nest is natural, or even the tools of a chimpanzee is natural then so is a robot/android made by humans because part of nature made it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    If sentient machines could be created then it would pose very difficult moral questions. The solution to this scenario is to not make sentient a machine designed to defuse explosives.
    I mean Data had rights in Star Trek, defended them in Court and everything
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.