Manny’s Reviews > Robot Rights > Status Update
Manny
is on page 100 of 256
A robot is just a machine, and a machine is just a tool. And now, ladies and gentlemen, I will convert an "is" and another "is" into an "ought". Are you watching carefully... there is nothing up my sleeve...
DAVID HUME!
There you are, a robot ought not have rights.
What might be wrong with the above argument?
— Mar 19, 2023 04:54PM
DAVID HUME!
There you are, a robot ought not have rights.
What might be wrong with the above argument?
8 likes · Like flag
Manny’s Previous Updates
Manny
is on page 175 of 256
The problem is that these questions are difficult to study. Imagine, for instance, trying to design an experiment that could pass standard IRB scrutiny, if the objective was to test whether raping robotic sex dolls would make one more likely to perform such acts in real life, be a cathartic release for individuals with a proclivity for sexual violence, or have no noticeable effect on behaviour.
— Mar 20, 2023 06:43PM
Manny
is on page 150 of 256
- "Look, even thought you could give robots rights, wouldn't it be simplest if you just didn't do so and considered them as slaves?"
- "Well, you could do that. Though remember that, as Hegel pointed out, slavery harms the master as much as the slave. And historically, the practice of slavery has been intimately connected with racism. And on intimacy, do you really want robot sex slaves?"
- "Uh, well..."
— Mar 20, 2023 04:27AM
- "Well, you could do that. Though remember that, as Hegel pointed out, slavery harms the master as much as the slave. And historically, the practice of slavery has been intimately connected with racism. And on intimacy, do you really want robot sex slaves?"
- "Uh, well..."
Manny
is on page 130 of 256
A simple solution to the problem of robot rights would be to make it a requirement that the robots in question should clearly possess consciousness. But some damn philosophers insist on complicating things by asking whether we're quite sure we know what consciousness is. A couple even go so far as to wonder if it's not just the secular version of the soul.
Look guys, whose side are you on?
— Mar 20, 2023 03:08AM
Look guys, whose side are you on?
Manny
is on page 75 of 256
The organisation of the book is splendidly logical. The author separates the issue into two questions, S1 "Can robots have rights?" and S2 "Should robots have rights?" and then proceeds to investigate all four possible combinations. Having finished the introductory chapters, I'm now up to the first version, "Robots are not capable of having rights, thus the question of whether they should have them is moot".
— Mar 19, 2023 03:27AM
Comments Showing 1-6 of 6 (6 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Well, the book is basically about answering the above questions, and I'm still less than halfway through. One way to argue it is to say that robots can never be more than tools, and we would not consider giving a tool rights. Another way is to say that robots will soon be quite a lot like people, and there is a history of broadening the class of individuals with rights so that it's not just limited to rich white men. Counterintuitive as that seems.
Umm, it seems counterintuitive to consider extending rights and legal abilities to robots, but I am sure it always seemed that way at first each time the class of individuals to receive the same rights and privileges as rich white men were broadened.Hmm, robots. This presents a question I never considered before. I am curious how the book addresses its proposed dilemmas. I will be looking forward to any updates you may share on during your reading.
I'll be posting a review soon. The book is short and remarkably topical in the age of ChatGPT. You will not be surprised to hear that Chat likes it.
I believe Noam Chomsky called Chat the banality of evil incarnate. What does Chat think about that?
I think Chomsky is just miffed that Chat learned a hundred languages without bothering to acquire Universal Grammar first.Chat is very diplomatic when I asked about this.
The broad generalization of characterizing robots as “machines” or “a tool” could be duly applied to humans (arguing that humans are some kind of biomechanical machine). Then the distinction between robot and human is narrowed down to what… Sentience? With advancements in AI development, is it possible that the demarcation between human/robot will become blurred to a point of having equal or at least an indistinguishable appearance of sentience?
I believe there is a worldwide consensus on whether a human ought to have rights.
Why ought naught a robot have rights?