Interesting. It would be wrong to let people think that their robots are persons.
“There are several fundamental claims of this paper:
1 – Having servants is good and useful, provided no one is dehumanised.
2 – A robot can be a servant without being a person.
3 – It is right and natural for people to own robots.
4 – It would be wrong to let people think that their robots are persons.”
I saw a guy from Boston Dynamics beating up on a robot – it made me feel sad, despite knowing it wasn’t even “feeling” it – wasn’t even a robot but a cgi trick. Playing with our emotions already and they don’t know it – bless the bots, they will tell us who we really are.
As robots learn more and more by imitation, we may have to start treating them better. As machines approach intelligent status, should there be a code of ethics for how we behave around them?
If we insist on playing God, I would prefer we be benevolent creators than tyrannical rulers, especially in a world where the robots could reject and replace us eventually. The AI revolution seems inevitable. We should make sure we’re on the right side.
Loading...
Interesting. It would be wrong to let people think that their robots are persons.
“There are several fundamental claims of this paper:
1 – Having servants is good and useful, provided no one is dehumanised.
2 – A robot can be a servant without being a person.
3 – It is right and natural for people to own robots.
4 – It would be wrong to let people think that their robots are persons.”
I saw a guy from Boston Dynamics beating up on a robot – it made me feel sad, despite knowing it wasn’t even “feeling” it – wasn’t even a robot but a cgi trick. Playing with our emotions already and they don’t know it – bless the bots, they will tell us who we really are.
If we insist on playing God, I would prefer we be benevolent creators than tyrannical rulers, especially in a world where the robots could reject and replace us eventually. The AI revolution seems inevitable. We should make sure we’re on the right side.