December 21, 2006

• I don't know about that, but I think this clearly establishes that robots may easily attain the level of intelligence required to write papers for the British Government.
• If a machine behaves as if it were sentient and intelligent would it not behoove us to treat it as such? The only evidence that we have of each others consciousness is our behaviour. did I use behoove appropriately? I hope so.
• Well, I'd say that's a very big if. And as a matter of fact we do have some other evidence - we know that other people are constituted the same way as us and have a similar history. Even though we don't clearly know how consciousness works, it's reasonable, therefore, to expect that any faculties we have, other people are likely to have too. At the moment it's not at all clear whether robots could ever have the properties required to be a moral agent, and there are some good reasons to doubt it, if you take 'robots' to mean something computer-driven. I go for the single-o 'behove' myself, but that's just taste and fancy. Your usage seems unreproachable so far as I know.
• We've given legal rights to other non-sentient things, like corporations. This is no different.
• MonkeyFilter: The only evidence that we have of each others consciousness is our behaviour We've given legal rights to other non-sentient things, like corporations Knick, we really, really need to take those legal rights away from corporations and begin to hold them accountable in all ways. Corporations rights are what's screwing up so much in this country--financially, environmentally, socially.
• Corporations rights are what's screwing up so much in this country--financially, environmentally, socially I can't believe that evil corporations took over the planet and we pure and innocent human beans were packed into tin cans and sold at the supermaket for ants to eat at picnics. Damn you, corporants. Damn you to back to the anthell.
• I hear ya Gramma. That's pretty much the point I was making. Robots being given legal rights makes as much sense (or is just as ridiculous) as giving corporations legal rights. Neither are human nor sentient in any way, they are just artificial constructs that symbolize humans.
• So, when can I do right by my hot robot lady, and make her my wife?
• afaik, most ethicists are of the opinion that all living things deserve at least some moral consideration. and many will argue that individuals such as apes and monkeys should be fully considered "persons", and treated as such. let's compare, for example, koko the gorilla with terri schiavo (when she was "alive"). one of them: uses language to communicate, has feelings, is able to sense and perceive her environment, is self-aware, can paint her own fingernails, etc... and the other one was an electric meatbag, incapable of doing any of those things, and was only able "live" through the use of machines. how about a cetacean and a human baby? the cetacean could likely be considered more "human" than the baby by most criteria beyond the superficial. and what about darth vader and C3PO? the latter may not be "organic", but he's certainly "sentient" and much more "human" than the former. and so, it should be easy to see the difficulty with "granting" (legal?) rights solely to homo sapiens. aren't you all just meat-machines and meat-computers, anyway? a dangerous and horribly destructive meat-virus? what makes you so special?
• In other news, Wedge performs his rarely seen "thoughtful" act. Hi, Wedgie.
• C3PO and R2D2 have always reminded me of Big Bird and Snuffelupigus. I can't explain exactly why.
• Yes, corporations and other legal entities have legal personhood, but surely only by proxy from the human beings who sustain them? To assume that robots are equivalent to corporations would in any case beg the question. Some living things besides human beings are generally considered moral objects, but not usually moral subjects (hope I've got that the right way round): ie, there are moral issues about what is done to them, but not about what they do. However, to assume that robots are living things again begs the question. My impression is that the majority of ethical specialists do not think all primates should be fully considered persons (I'm aware of that vote in, was it Spain?) - but however that may be, to assume that robots equate to primates, yada yada. Darth Vader and C3PO are fictional characters. Moreover, Mr K, you cannot spell "Snuffleupagus". So there.
• corporations and other legal entities have legal personhood, but surely only by proxy from the human beings who sustain them? Corporations are supposed to be a symbolic human. Even the term means body. They are an artificial body replacing the role of a real human body. The only real difference I see is that robots actually have a physical body, and corporations have a totally incorporeal body (ironically). Moreover, Mr K, you cannot spell "Snuffleupagus". Yeah.
• Monkeyfilter: all just meat-machines and meat-computers
• I mean, what makes a moral being? I'd say that to be a moral object, ie to have the moral right not to have certain things done to you, etc, you need to have feelings. Nobody really knows what 'having feelings' really entails, so to claim it for robots is just waffle. To be a moral subject, ie to have the duty to do certain kinds of thing and not other kinds of thing, I would say you have to be responsible for your actions; you need real agency. Plenty of mystery about that too, but robots, programmed and designed to behave in a particular way, are in one light outstandingly bad candidates - you can argue about whether we choose our actions freely, but surely they don't. In the case of corporations, you can loosely say that they have feelings and make decisions, but really it's the constituent human beings that are doing both. Robots, in any case, are not constituted by groups of human beings and so they seem quite different to me. To be honest, I had to look up the Snuffleupagus.
• The Three Laws Of Robotics