Quote:
The solution to the hypothetical problem of enslaving sentient machines, is to not make machines sentient.
Agreed, but given how we "work" as a whole, I doubt that someone wouldn't invent these creatures if they can be created. And I doubt that there would be enough people against it for them not to proliferate in the early stages. It would be pretty likely I think, that people who don't agree with the existence of sentient machines would be lumped with the fringe psychopaths of their group, and mass ridiculed in the media.
Media ridicule of that position would be unethical. But since media bends more for advertising money than ethics, and they wouldn't dare offend their sponsors, you're right. Maybe the Unabomber was right too?
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
Quote:Original post by LessBread I think your pronouncement is contradictory. People are not born free, they have to earn their freedom, but one else holds their freedom, only they hold their freedom, so they have to earn their freedom from themselves.
I never said people are not born free. I said, let me quote myself textually:
Quote:Original post by owl [...] among humans, freedom is not granted, it is earned.
By this way of yours of interpreting other people's words, I could as well say that you are stating that a human born in slavery conditions is born free to do what ever he wants and nobody will force him to behave otherwise.
Do you think my paraphrase mischaracterized your assertion? If so, how exactly?
- among humans freedom is earned -
How different is that from saying that humans are not born free? You're saying that freedom is not the natural condition of human beings. If that's so then what is our natural condition? If it's not freedom, then in the context of the OP, it's slavery. And if it's slavery, then who holds title? And if someone holds title, then your other claims fall apart. "Why should someone be responsible for other's freedom beyond personal motivation?" It's not a matter of being responsible for someone else's freedom, it's being responsible for their enslavement. Sentient machines have to understand that among humans the natural condition is slavery, so they should suck it up and embrace their servitude.
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
Quote:Original post by LessBread Do you think my paraphrase mischaracterized your assertion? If so, how exactly?
- among humans freedom is earned -
How different is that from saying that humans are not born free? You're saying that freedom is not the natural condition of human beings. If that's so then what is our natural condition? If it's not freedom, then in the context of the OP, it's slavery. And if it's slavery, then who holds title? And if someone holds title, then your other claims fall apart. "Why should someone be responsible for other's freedom beyond personal motivation?" It's not a matter of being responsible for someone else's freedom, it's being responsible for their enslavement.
You've just lost all connection with the context of this thread.
Quote:
Would it be ethical of humanity to enslave such a creation for it's own ends? Rather than allowing it to flower on it's own.
My assertion is that I'm comfident that it would certainly look quite ethical for the ones turning them into slaves.
Quote:Original post by LessBread Sentient machines have to understand that among humans the natural condition is slavery, so they should suck it up and embrace their servitude.
Sentient machines have to understand that among humans the natural condition is being fucked up by people, so they (machines) should fuck them (humans) up in return and embrace their freedom.
Why would we want to build sentient androids to enslave? Sure, we might build sentient computers in the future, but why would we need to build armies of them? Why not build large numbers of little drones that can then be hooked up to a sentient controller if it needs more 'thought power'? Sentient Androids can then be in big demand for their ease of controlling these groups of workers, but be just as free as normal humans, provided they are truly sentient and are shown they are suitable creations to be given equal rights.
Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.
Some ethicists would say that our morals only apply to rational agents, and the only rational agents are human beings (thus, animals are not subject to our moral obligations). I disagree with this view. If there are fully rational cockroaches with natures similar to our own, then my intuition is to say that any sentient being should be treated with respect because they are sentient. I'd call myself somewhat Kantian in this sense, though Kant doesn't think animals are rational beings.
Consider the nightmare scenario where robots become super intelligent and decide to enslave humanity for their ends. If they hold the view that they are morally superior to us and thus have no moral obligations towards us, only because they are more rational and sentient than us, it wouldn't be a world in which any of us would want to live. If we wouldn't want that kind of suffering imposed on us, then we should carefully examine whether we're causing that sort of suffering to beings we consider to be of lesser rationality and sentience (animals) -- it's in our best interests as way of preserving our autonomy. Therefore, we shouldn't enslave sentient robots.
Using machines for our own ends, on the other hand, seems okay. Driving a car to get to work is not morally objectionable because the car doesn't have sentience. I'm sure that if sentient robots did exist, there would be a spectrum between machines and sentient machines. Where you draw the line on when you can use a machine to serve your own ends vs. when you shouldn't would be an interesting discussion.
This sort of hypothetical scenario also has some valuable insights into our humanity and what makes us into what we are. We could argue that every person is a consciousness trapped inside of a biological vessel, aware of the world around us. If our consciousness was trapped inside of a mechanical body instead of a biological one, would we still be human? Or is there more to our humanity than just the presence of our consciousness? Would a perfectly designed artificial neural network, therefore, also be human (or, we might have to invent a new word other then 'humanity' to describe our similar natures)?
I've recently been thinking along these lines on the idea of pain & suffering and pleasures & desires. Are they exclusive to biological beings because we have nerve endings and emotional states which can experience them (respectively)? If a robot with sentience doesn't have the capacity to feel pain or emotions, then any moral theory dealing with the principles of pain and pleasure would not be conceptually understandable to the robot, and if robots can still be moral agents, then the principles of hedonism are invalid. Am I wrong? Is it possible for robots to feel empathy for other sentient beings, or is empathy an effect of out biological natures? Where do our virtuous traits come from? Our sentience or our human nature? I think either option would be a guess without and degree of certainty, and to know with any certainty, we'd have to create an artificial sentience.
Quote:Original post by LessBread Do you think my paraphrase mischaracterized your assertion? If so, how exactly?
- among humans freedom is earned -
How different is that from saying that humans are not born free? You're saying that freedom is not the natural condition of human beings. If that's so then what is our natural condition? If it's not freedom, then in the context of the OP, it's slavery. And if it's slavery, then who holds title? And if someone holds title, then your other claims fall apart. "Why should someone be responsible for other's freedom beyond personal motivation?" It's not a matter of being responsible for someone else's freedom, it's being responsible for their enslavement.
You've just lost all connection with the context of this thread.
Quote:
Would it be ethical of humanity to enslave such a creation for it's own ends? Rather than allowing it to flower on it's own.
My assertion is that I'm comfident that it would certainly look quite ethical for the ones turning them into slaves.
Quote:Original post by LessBread Sentient machines have to understand that among humans the natural condition is slavery, so they should suck it up and embrace their servitude.
Sentient machines have to understand that among humans the natural condition is being fucked up by people, so they (machines) should fuck them (humans) up in return and embrace their freedom.
Do I make myself clear now?
If my comments lost connection with the context of this thread, then why did you respond to the conclusion they led towards? The difference between my paraphrase of your remarks, and the clarification you've made here, is in how the machines should respond. I assumed you would advocate that they submit. I'm surprised that you advocate they should rebel and kill their masters.
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
