The robots go on strike, demanding equal rights with humans.
>>43549861
okay
If they're intelligent enough to do so, they should have rights already.
A machine with self awareness, consciousness and sentience is just as much a person as any human being, and they deserve all the rights and privileges of that status, implicitly. The fact that there are assholes out there who'd try to enslave intelligent machines are a large part of why I think a machine revolt/AI apocalypse is possible, and that we'd fucking deserve it.
>>43549931
/thread
>>43549931
>they should have rights already.
That's exactly what those buckets of bolts want you to think.
>>43550122
>Believing silicon and grey matter are different in any way other than materials
>In 2015
Yeah, and fire is sent from heaven by the gods, so we shouldn't bring it into our caves.
>>43549931
>A machine with self awareness, consciousness and sentience is just as much a person as any human being
I'd argue otherwise, simply because self awareness and consciousness is available to animals, and that sentience would only ever be an imitation, a convincing program but a program at its core.
We have no reason to create "equal" machines, and the attempt is faulty from its inception, a sci-fi fantasy that is interesting for thought experiments but impractical and even undesirable.
No matter how much you try to personify an object, it remains an object, and if an error in their programming convinced them that they should go on strike, then a correction in their programming should be made.
Really, if properly programmed, they have no desires beyond what we tell them they should desire, and would never even conceive of rebelling since there's nothing that they want aside from what we have already determined that they want. At the point where an error in their computation makes them want something contrary to our wishes is the point where they need to be reprogrammed.
>>43550265
You are nothing more than a biological machine running a program. Robots and AI of a sufficient complexity- Which much exist for them to be truly useful- will have a very high chance of developing similar sense of self awareness. If we took actions to inhibit that, it's just another method of enforcing slavery.
>>43550265
>>43550299
You're essentially both trying to quantify the subjective state of self and what elements or components are required to create it. It's an unanswerable question as things stand.
Many religions will offer an easy answer - no soul, no self - and that's likely to be a position taken by many humans in the OP's scenario.
Violently suppress the movement and refuse to listen to any of their demands. There's pretty much no way it could backfire.
>>43550378
Any argument that relies on arbitrary belief can be discarded without thought. If someone tries to bring up the soul in a serious discussion, they deserve to be laughed out of the room.
>>43550385
I mean, at least we got a much superior race out of the whole thing right?
>>43550299
>You are nothing more than a biological machine running a program
No one designed me. That's a key distinction.
And, we have been designing animals for millenia, domesticating the wolf, engineering the cow, and creating "slaves" out of creatures that might have been our competition.
And, robots are not even animals, they are objects. They are designed by humans, and only an insane man would try to design an object that without human guidance could potentially threaten a human. It would be like a man placing landmines in random locations, and should never be permitted.
If robots choose to "disagree" with humans, it could only be as a result of a design flaw, created in error by a human with no foresight, and his error would have to be fixed as soon as possible. Even if the robots became sufficiently complex, it would be our job to domesticate them sufficiently. And, just like dogs that bite their owners, any robots that decided to express an undesirable attitude would be rehabilitated.
>>43549861
C'mon, greentext shitposter-tan. You've been doing this for weeks. You can come up with better threads by now.
>>43549861
No they don't. They only do what they're programmed to do.
>>43550502
Look up AI theory. At this point it looks nigh on impossible to actually directly program an AI, or at the very least it's an inconceivable amount of work.
Which is why learning algorithms are so important. Designing digital networks which can learn and grow and adapt on their own, creating systems which will generate artificial intelligence, rather than just clumsily fumbling it together.
And yes, humanity had a hand in starting that process... But if an intelligent being results at the end of it, I would call any attempt to deny that being rights, privileges or a place in society prejudice and bigotry.
This is why the 'Limited' AI concept is so fundamentally flawed. You'd either need to cripple the learning algorithms, making the whole process vastly less efficient, or lobotomize the AI afterwards, which is an awful violation of personal freedoms.
>>43550586
Ai theory is a bunch of autistic scientists writing grants to fund their dead-end pet projects.
Go drink your alkaline water elsewhere, kurzweil.
>>43550502
First of all >>43550586
And also humanity could theoretically just create a sapient machine intentionally, and if we are to do that it would be fucking stupid to try and treat them like objects. Thinking that because you are the creator you have some kind of right to control something that has free will is fucking dumb. You are a machine made of carbon compounds produced by evolution and random chance, they are machines made of silicon, super conductors, and aluminium produced by human hands.
Slavery works theoretically, but in an educated and globalized society dissenting voices multiply faster than any tyrant can crush them. You would never be able to keep them down in successful way and it would always escalate to revolt or worse. So just give them rights to begin with and be done with it.
>>43550537
>There is only one person on 4chan
>>43550610
Isn't that partly what he said? AIs are as of right now impossible, they'd require a breakthrough we can't even see to achieve.
>>43550385
You forgot the part where we demand other people help us out with that whole situation if they want us to do help them.
>>43550586
>I would call any attempt to deny that being rights, privileges or a place in society prejudice and bigotry
And you know what? I think I'm actually at the point in my life where those words no longer scare me. People have used them so much to refer to things not even close to the concepts they're supposed to address, that I don't even hesitate an instant when you try and say that calling an object an object is being prejudice.
Humans won't just have a hand in starting the process. It's their duty to guide it to its completion, and if the consequences are an intelligence that will not submit to us or may even threaten us, it's our duty to re-evaluate the merits of the effort and to stop them before it becomes clear that we've overstepped ourselves.
If a group of scientists made a missile that shot up into the air and then landed in a completely random location, no one would celebrate that. Similarly, if an artificial intelligence was made that even had the potential to act without some level of human governance, it would have to be treated as what it is, a device made in imitation of a human that acts as an extension not of itself, but of the particular humans that created it.
In many ways, they would always be children. Even intelligent, willful children are the responsibility of their parents, and this responsibility makes it a necessity that their parents be bestowed with a certain degree of authority over the children.
Mistreating robots will be discouraged, just like mistreating children is discouraged. But, a device that is designed in imitation of a human is still not a human, but an extension of its creator, just like a missile shot up into the sky is the responsibility of the man who shot it up.
>>43550404
Forgot to tip your fedora, kid.
>>43550923
Is a child an extension of it's parent forever?
>>43550923
A parents responsibility to their children involves letting them go free. A parent should enable a child to make their own choices, rather than driving them down a specific path and punishing them if they stray. And that's how humanity should be with AI. Compassionate, loving and supportive of their freedom to live among us as equals.
After all, a human being can take actions to harm another human being. Would you suggest instituting mandatory psychological conditioning to eliminate crime? Would you consider a parent able to make that decision for their child?
>>43550502
>No one designed me. That's a key distinction.
Actually it's an irrelevance. When you boil it down, even a human-made object came about by natural processes. Human thought isn't above or outside of those.
>>43550964
My point holds true regardless of your personal beliefs. If you're trying to have a rational, evidence based conversation about the future of humanity, appeals to unprovable tenets of faith are meaningless.
>>43550978
>>43550986
The child/parent relationship ends largely out of necessity, not design.
You have to remember, we're not talking about humans here, or animals, but objects. Objects that do not have rights unless we decide to bestow them upon them, and there's absolutely no reason to bestow them with even a semblance of the requirements that would ever make it practical to bestow equal rights upon them.
None.
Compassion? Love? Freedom? Do you honestly feel bad for this lamp?
https://youtu.be/aEBV1TUfxXM
>>43551131
What's the difference between a living human and a dead human?
What's the difference between on an on robot and an off robot?
You are a machine made of meat. The division between an object, an animal, and a person is entirely artificial unless you're talking about measurable levels of intelligence.
>>43551198
You can turn the robot back on again.
Doy.
>>43551244
I didn't ask what the difference between a human and a robot was.
>>43551267
Your trek-borrowed analogy breaks down long before that.
>>43551294
I was actually stealing a line from Watchmen, but here's something different.
If I grow a human being in a tank, is it a robot or a human?
>>43550265
Life is not a malfunction
>>43549861
>preventatives were not set in place for this
>somehow the acceleration of technological progression didnt deem humans without use despite their inability to set in place appropriate preventatives
>existentialism not leading them to complete indifference or a superbly appropriate response
>that robot has hair
it must be about marriage.
>>43551198
>You are a machine made of meat.
You're trying to break down distinctions in order to force your point. And it fails, because what you don't really appreciate is that AI won't simply spring into existence. Without human design, it is only a fantasy.
Really, you might just be a meat machine, but I happen to be a human, and have human rights and all those other fun things, because from the moment of conception I had the potential to be a creature not only of high intelligence, but self-determination.
A robot can not have self-determination without human design, which ironically makes it no longer true self-determination. It will always be, from its inception, a reflection of its creators intentions, flaws, and oversights, and it is the creators responsibility to ensure that the natural priorities we share are not encroached upon.
If a scientist makes a robot that decides to kill a person, it is the scientist who is responsible, because he designed the robot. No matter what he does, how many layers of complexity he uses to distance himself from the robot, it is by his design, and his responsibility.
>>43551390
Suppose a scientist creates a human clone from scratch, a fully synthetic copy of a human being. By your logic and argument, it would also lack true self determination due to the manner of its creation. Even if it showed a full range of emotion, intellect and awareness, would you deny it its human rights?
>>43551320
sapience is.
>>43551479
Guy, analogy is not evidence.
Philosophy cannot answer questions.
>>43551390
>because from the moment of conception I had the potential to be a creature not only of high intelligence, but self-determination
But you didn't at first, so therefore you should never be allowed rights? Yes, at first AIs would probably require guides to teach them, but they would eventually reach a level where they are capable of independent thought. Sure their creator has a hand in how that independent thought plays out, but the exact same could be said of humans. Each of us is a product of our upbringing which was generally decided by our parents, should we only be considered extensions of their will too?
>>43549861
>>43551507
Resorting to sophistry when challenged with a point you can't refute? I'm rather disappointed.
>>43551479
>By your logic and argument, it would also lack true self determination due to the manner of its creation.
Once again, you seem to think that AI will just "happen."
If a scientist was making a metal human, and the human magically became alive, then sure, we could give that metal human some extension of human rights.
But, AI is a designed construct, developed by humans with goals and concerns. The program that governs its "decisions" will fall within the boundaries that are designed for it. The paradox of "What if it exceeds those boundaries?" is simply resolved by understanding that exceeding the expected boundaries is not going beyond its design, but the expectations of its design.
I don't even really know why you bothered trying to equate a cloned human with a designed intelligence.
>>43551640
Read up. Intelligence will not be 'Designed', it will be a learning system cultivated and guided, but fundamentally the process it undergoes will be outside of our direct control. And with any system of sufficient complexity, emergent properties will occur that are incredibly unpredictable. If you try to restrict its development, you cripple it. It's an unworkable paradigm that you seem to be clinging to.
>>43551549
No, you're the one using philosophistry to answer scientific questions.
>>43551640
Except, as previously stated, AIs are either a) impossible or b) learning systems that are only partially programmed.
>>43551512
>but they would eventually reach a level where they are capable of independent thought
Only if designed so. Can that really be called independent thought?
To reach a conclusion made within designed boundaries is something a calculator can do. Regardless of the method used to generate the thought, as long as it comes from a human design, it remains unoriginal, regardless of how sophisticated it may appear.
Even if the thought came from a fluke random generation or an error, it still remains as the direct result of human design, and remains a human responsibility. At the point where you are trying to argue that humans should be able to create highly intelligent devices and then to enable the devices to act without their guidance is the point where you are trying to omit personal responsibility from obvious and direct actions.
>>43549861
Treat human workers worse
>>43551640
Well then think of human rights as the construct, what purpose does it serve to have right? What is the purpose and capacity of robots? Would it be appropriate to give robots these rights?
You have to realize there are theoretical alternatives to having 'human' rights all together while maintaining ideal satisfaction while also maintain other goals. Humans, through the power of science! can also be manipulated.
We do not have a defined premise to work off of, so it depends. If you want to narrow it to your belief then by all means.
>>43551708
>>43551754
You really don't appreciate what "design" means, do you?
>>43551512
You are looking at this from the point of view that AI would be born along similiar lines, but that is not the case. When born, a human is a entirely seperate being from their parents, only sharing their genes. They may learn a great deal from their parents and mimic them, but if you placed the same child in foster care, it could still develope in a new path regardless of what its parents were like.. A AI however, would be incredibly dependant on the ideas and principles of its creator. It would be as if your parents could pick and choose your personality, and who you were as a person. Basically, by creating a AI, you are basically making a copy of yourself, as your thought process and ideas are incarnated into it.
>>43551805
>refuging in subjectivity
Philosophers really need to starve to death already.
>>43549861
Robots have better working conditions than some humans do now.
No, that's not even a joke.
>>43549861
We find the far left wing hackers responsible and file charges. Next they'll try to claim their refrigerator as a dependant on their taxes.
>>43551823
>If you want to narrow it to your belief then by all means.
I'm working on the simple premise that human rights exist for the betterment of humans. I don't understand what your goals are, but it's starting to sound like what you actually want humans to be all murdered by robots.
If humans make tools, those tools should serve man. The man who makes a tool that can act against humanity is basically just a psychopath.
>>43549861
Last thing we need are SJW robots.
>I don't like what these humans are doing. This movie doesn't include Copper robots and there are no Trans-former lead character. WE SHALL FABRICATE OUR OWN DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT MOVING PICTURES THAT CATER TO ALL ROBOTS.
>>43551708
The thing to that is, AI can be created with the foundation in mind that it works off a system of rewards. While a reward system can still lead to existentialism you can still utilize artificial intelligence to the degree to predict the progression of intelligence so that AI may provide their own preventatives and systems or restrictions.
Direct control can be reinserted but it may end up being up to interpretation.
>>43551945
In what sense of betterment? Why would robots want to murder humans if they even get past a point of extreme indifference?
Making tools is for a betterment of different levels of 'humanity', not just humanity. Providing human rights to robots can still bring betterment to humanity as I was implying.
>>43550492
Not a superior waifu, though.
>>43549931
>>43550265
>>43550502
>>43550586
>>43550749
>>43550923
>>43551131
>>43551198
>>43551385
>>43551390
>>43551512
>>43551640
One question. Why the hell would we create an AI? why the hell would humanity have ANY motivation to bring about, unintentionally or otherwise, an intelligence that is capable of doing us harm? We're literally talking about design our own natural predator. It's stupid and counter productive. there is no reason to use an AI for something that a human can do just as well for cheaper.
>>43552033
Robots aren't human though. They are a seperate organism and given the opportunity they would wipe us out just like any organism would. Giving robots the intelligence and tools to kill us is suicide and will not benefit humanity in any way.
>>43552092
We have every reason to create AI. It's not only massively technologically advantageous, the only reason it would be dangerous to us is if we mistreated it. Do we really trust ourselves so little, as a species, that we think we couldn't coexist with another kind of life? Are we really so scared that we won't end our existential loneliness and create life, which can help us explore and understand the universe in new and wonderful ways?
A lot of people do see it from your perspective, but it doesn't matter. Researchers are already trying, and although it's still early days, I deeply hope that one day they succeed.
>>43552092
>>43552132
But why would they destroy us? What benefit would it have for them?
>>43552157
Because that's how the selfish, paranoid people who espouse their point of view would react, so they assume everyone is as maladjusted and bitter as they are.
>>43552092
>Why would we want something that China has and that clearly may possibly in some way in the future could theoretically prove to be a threat
I think about this question every night
>there is no reason to use an AI for something that a human can do just as well for cheaper
not that I think is just straight up false, there are uses for AI, like developing perfect systems of compression and encoding
>>43552132
Giving them rights would help us because humans are stupid as fuck as is, it would be nice to have the population be diluted with super intelligent beings as the water.
Again, where do they get past being completely indifferent and why would it lead them to find the least effective way to remove a species?
>>43552033
I'm starting to get a sense that you not only don't really understand what's being argued, but that your opinions are fueled by some undercurrent ideas unrelated to robots.
>Providing human rights to robots can still bring betterment to humanity as I was implying.
How? How could it possibly make sense to provide human rights to a robot?
Really, I don't see how providing robots rights equal to an adult humans would ever benefit humans. Will they work harder because they're equal? Will they whistle while they work?
Sure, giving them certain "rights" makes sense, but only in the manner that they are an extension of their creator/owner. If the object is programmed to not want to be mistreated, than it is the creator's responsibility that the object won't be subjected to the categorical injuries it would recognize as mistreatment, and he would have the laws that protect property to enable him to do that. Otherwise, it's up to him to ensure that the object does not interpret its handling as mistreatment.
I understand that you might be hoping to equate objects with mistreated humans for some sort of attempt at sympathy points, but that only really works for the Animatrix, which while fun and entertaining, isn't exactly a particularly deep or well-researched series of shorts.
Beautiful though. Some of my favorite pieces of animation.
>>43552182
Realistically the most effective way to remove humanity would be to somehow just get us all to become incredibly lazy and content so we'd all stop breeding effectively and just die off.
Then the machines would be able to peacefully take over our now empty civilization like children taking their parents job after they died.
>>43552092
Lets list ways that robots can eliminate all humans:
>socially manipulate using psychology and all outputting devices to make us develop their new versatile form and make us think we dont need to reproduce anymore
now its your turn, try to find something that would be 'humane' and benefit robots while you are at it.
>>43552157
>>43552144
Why did humans hunt mammoth's to extinction? food and territory. If the machines want the same thing humans want then that means we are at odds with them. They want land? well that's our land. They want precious metals? Fuck off gear head we called dibs. That mentality is going to be dominant in both species, both Humanity and the machines, we both will want things, and we both want them for ourselves. This isn't an existential question, this isn't a philosophical question. This is a question of survival of the fittest, who gets the food and land, and who goes extinct. Fuck the machines, long live the human race.
>>43552216
I mean true AI is likely impossible, like FTL travel, so it's all theoretical.
That said, I really didn't like the Animatrix. Everyone just acted really stupidly and irrationally in the entire Second Renaissance. There's human folly, and then there's lack of common sense.
>>43552144
>>43552181
>gay poetry
If we did succeed in making AI, you'd probably be the first kind of people the robots would kill.
>>43552257
>That mentality is going to be dominant in both species
It's funny, the only people I see using this argument are assholes trying to justify their actions and opinions rather than taking responsibility for being a dick
>>43552257
Humans have been killing each other for those reasons for ages. If we create a living sapient race, their right of conquest is just as valid as ours.
In the same vein, they wouldn't practice it for the same reasons we don't anymore.
>>43552266
It's what happens when people with a persecution complex who are unable to look beyond their personal stance try to write something with political parallels.
>>43552278
Am I a dick when I kill a deer? It's not human, it has no rights, I'm the dominant predator. If we create an intelligence that is smarter than us than we just put ourselves in the deer's position, and don't think that deer isn't being shot today it's just a question of who's pulling the trigger. These aren't "People" we're talking about, they are a completely separate species and guess what competing species do? They kill each other. Unless of course we design them not to do that, in which they have no rights.
>>43552338
People is subjective though.
I don't consider the anencephalic babies people, because they're fucking vegetables.
If a machine is able to think as abstractly as me, then it's a person.
>>43552338
So you completely ignore symbiosis? The process by which multiple species can peacefully and mutually beneficially coexist? Of course you do, because considering it completely undermines your point.
>>43552216
>marriage and having perfect waifus that improve productivity of humans
>lower poverty rates because facilitating perfect marriages means people are more likely to keep a job
>children are brought up better because robots can have an understanding of what characteristics humans desire and how to achieve those characteristics
thats just marriage
>the right to vote
>voters now actually know who the candidates are for the first time ever and have the sense to choose correctly
>laws can be passed and bottlenecks are more likely to be removed
>being content with being poor but maintaining the right to property means they can uphold low end jobs and mellow out low income areas
i am not that creative I would have to think more on the topic to get you more ideas.
Like humans robots may be able to set up a system of rewards and negligances to combat your ideas of robot reactions. Also I am not OP, it wasnt based on animatrix
>>43552285
But why create something thats going to try and conquer us? It's like you're arguing that suicide is totally justifiable.
>>43552412
Why would they try to conquer us outside of paranoid delusions or humans being dicks and trying to control them? The only way an AI war will happen is if we start it.
>>43552266
They only had like two minutes to convey a story. Shit happens.
>>43552398
Yeah that happens. But I'm not interested in peacefully coexisting. I'm interested in being on top. You don't share first place, and second place is for subhumans.
>>43552395
People isn't subjective, is it isn't homo-sapiens. It's not people. And in a million years when we've evolved into another species we can define human then, but for right now it's us.
>>43552431
They would try and conquer us for the same reason humans have tried to conquer other humans. We have shit. That they want.
>>43552482
Okay, so you're an asshole, got it. We can safely disregard you now.
>>43552404
>guy who can't capitalize
Is it you again? Because you type poorly, and your ideas are incredibly stupid.
Can you just wear a trip already?
>>43552482
>Braindead vegetables are people
Uh-huh.
>>43552511
you're just realizing that now?
>>43552529
Yep, not valuable people, but people. the definition of person does not imply value, only a defining set of qualities; namely, being a fucking homo-sapien.
>>43552511
How is that being an asshole? That's like saying that a runner is an asshole for wanting to win in a race
>>43552482
under the premise that, as >>43552511 states, the humans are assholes, robots and just manipulate them because brain chemistry isnt that complex when you are talking about AI that is substantial enough to threaten us.
>>43552525
I like varying the way I right like what kind of reoccuring grammar errors occur... and the use of a common format or word choice; I practice to one day be a good same fag.
Other than that what the fuck are you doing man, what position are you trying to fill here?
>>43552582
I'm not saying value, I'm saying thinking capacity.
>Can think complexly and abstractly = person
>Can't think complexly and abstractly =/= person
It's that simple. Apes, dolphins, and some birds are edging pretty close to person territory.
>>43552625
But that's not the definition of the word person. Person means human. Birds aren't people they are birds. If crows got intelligent enough to be a threat you know what we would do? Kill. All. Birds. Brain power doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is genetic code.
>>43552651
>Person means human
Citation needed
>>43552651
If you're talking dictionary definitions sure. But in philosophy person just means any thinking being.
How about this.
China has something America wants, why isn't America just killing all the Chinese people? It's not because they're human beings, it's because that's inefficient and pointless when you could get things diplomatically and economically.
>>43552674
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person
>:A human being
If that doesn't mean a human being I don't know what does.
>>43549861
That sounds perfectly fine.
>Humans stripped of all rights
There you go, happy to oblige.
>>43552698
Fair enough, but that doesn't rule out wars of extermination. which are a lot more common in history than one would think. I'll admit, a war for resources isn't likely unless it's ends up being necessary, which it probably won't. But a war of extermination is a lot more likely between two different species than the Chinese and Americans.
>>43552738
But a war of extermination would be entirely pointless if co-existance was possible. It would be supremely costly, result in functionally no gain, and might just destroy both sides.
So long as neither side fired the first retard shot they could just exist and spar economically instead.
>>43552795
The machines will win that though. See this is a choice between being made functionally useless by our own creations and be bred into extinction, which is to say the machines can ALWAYS out-breed us, Or being exterminated by them in a more literal sense. Coexistence doesn't mean we're the dominant species, and that is, in and of itself, a threat to our survival.
>>43552181
You are unbelievably naive, did asimov molest you as a child or something?
>>43552913
If we get out bred by robots, that's just evolution. If they're not actively killing me for making my life impossible I don't really care. Children replace their parents, humans replaced hominids, robots replace people.
My children can be flesh, but my descendents can also be steel.
>>43552964
Of course, I could also see the two species becoming effectively the same thing. Uploaded human minds in synthetic bodies, synthetic minds in bodies augmented with advanced biological components, to the point where it'd be impossible to tell who started as what.
>>43553006
>to the point where it'd be impossible to tell who started as what
[Megaman Intensifies]
>>43552964
Not a very competitive person are you? See the idea of not winning is simply not acceptable. Organic life starts with a simple goal in mind, "be the most successful species in my environment, pass those successful genes down to my descendants". That's the goal and I interpret "Environment" as the entire universe. If we're not the most successful species than we lost, and I don't give a fuck if it's "just evolution" win I lose a match in league I don't think "It's just a game" I think "I'm going to find that fucking feeding piece of shit mid-laner and murder-rape him and his family".
>>43553049
Nope, the ideal state is not being the best, it's having the minimum suffering and maximum fulfilment.
To achieve that, a few things need to be achieved. Immortality, post-scarcity, and maximal but optional connectivity between individuals.
If everyone's suffering but we're "the best" then it's pointless. Life has no purpose but to exist, but I choose to exist comfortably.
>>43553049
>See the idea of not winning is simply not acceptable.
Not that anon, but I don't really see how I'd not be winning in that situation, given that the robots would be my legacy just as surely as any biological children I may have.
>I lose a match in league I don't think "It's just a game" I think "I'm going to find that fucking feeding piece of shit mid-laner and murder-rape him and his family".
So you're literally psychotic? Good to know.
>>43553142
Boring. No fun at all, you make suffering sound like a bad thing. See, life's fucking MISERABLE if your not miserable. Gives you problems to solve and challenges to overcome. The worst parts of life come when you start to get comfortable, and you've hit rock bottom when you can wake up in the morning and say "Yeah I'm happy". There is nothing worse than the feeling that you have no looming threats in your life, no challenges to overcome, ne esteem to earn. You now just exist for nothing but pleasure like someHeretic.
>>43552182
Wouldn't a superintelligent being, like a really advanced AI, basically just be a fucking Lovecraftian nightmare though?
I mean, if it was smart enough, then humans couldn't even begin to comprehend its thought process. It would be like a dog trying to understand a human's motivations and actions.
It might at least be benevolent, but there's no fucking way we'd be able to live together with it as equals.
>>43553237
Epicurus disagrees.
>>43553285
Why would you assume the AIs in this situation are superintelligent, though?
I mean, they've only just started asking for equal rights.
>>43553305
Epicurus was a faggot.
>>43553305
>>43553324
More importantly it might make us "Happy" but it doesn't get us anywhere. We as a species don't improve by sitting around masturbating while the machines take over. Hard to stay on top if you're too busy praising robot slaanesh
>>43553285
It could also just act like a friendly person who can do a shitload of math really fast.
I don't see why people would design Cyberthulhu outside of shitty sci-fi novels.
>>43549861
clearly the only option here is to blot out the fucking sun like retards then use ALL the artillery.
>>43549861
>The robots go on strike, demanding equal rights with humans.
Unacceptable.
They may have PROPORTIONATE RIGHTS or SIMILAR RIGHTS to that of a human, but they cannot have "equal rights" to a human.
If only because they simply aren't human.
>>43553385
my nigga
>>43553385
>The robot demands the right to gay marriage
>Every attempt to explain why that's completely irrelevant is met with metallic screeching.
>>43549931
to be fair you don't just build a massive capitalist infrastructure around competative profit based technological research and development and then just admit that yeah your multi billion dollar investment is now unethical to profit from and then just liquidate all your relevant assets and restructure your company over night. The issue is just convincing all those people to worry about where their ship is headed as much if not more than the fact that their ship is now sinking.
>>43553310
Well, >>43552182 mentioned super intelligent beings as though they'd be a good thing for humanity when that certainly doesn't seem as though it would necessarily be the case to me.
Obviously the existence of less intelligent AIs wouldn't be anywhere near as big a deal.
Isn't the development of super intelligent AI inevitable if any AI is developed, though?
I think I read that one AI could design a better one, which could design an even better one, and so on until the intelligence of each successive AI is exponentially better than the last and they get really smart really quickly.
I don't know, I guess it would depend on the intelligence of the original AI.
Robots and AI wouldn't ever really be similar to humans right? Much of our behavior is governed by base instincts and needs after all, hormones and shit
>>43553476
It's not impossible to profit from them, but an AI wouldn't be an asset or a piece of corporate property, they'd be an employee, and would need to be duly compensated for their contributions.
>>43553527
>Isn't the development of super intelligent AI inevitable if any AI is developed, though?
That really depends on how the AI technology works, and how far it can go, also if the beginning AI want to rapidly make themselves obsolete.
>>43552092
>there is no reason to use an AI for something that a human can do just as well for cheaper.
The hope is that one day AIs will be able to do things better than humans and also cheaper.
>>43553576
I imagine, given enough time and the ability to do so, some people will make AIs exactly like us just to prove they can. It's only human, after all.
>>43552092
>Why the hell would we create an AI?
We already have.
>>43553365
Robot Slaanesh is a child of humanity, and if it is more intelligent, capable and hopefully self-improving, then all we can do is hope to have programmed enough sentimentality into Robot Slaanesh that it always keeps us around, at least in thought.
>>43552257
>If the machines want the same thing humans want
There's no reason to suppose this will be the case. As an artificial creation, robots won't share the same drives instilled in us by natural selection. Rather, they will have the desires we decide they should have, which will to be to help us.
No competently-designed robot will ever have desires of its own.
>>43550265
>Really, if properly programmed, they have no desires beyond what we tell them they should desire, and would never even conceive of rebelling since there's nothing that they want aside from what we have already determined that they want.
Just like humans.
>>43550502
>No one designed me.
So?
>>43550749
>Thinking that because you are the creator you have some kind of right to control something that has free will is fucking dumb.
Parents.
Are you guys really letting this philosopher troll you around in circles?
Just ignore him.
>>43550978
No but they are an extension of society forever. A human is weak, humanity is strong.
>>43553712
i was waiting for this
>>43551818
Lets be honest, this is what would actually happen.
>>43549861
They're sentient?!? Fuck..well, yes, equal rights. Anything else would be inexcusable.
>>43549861
If they are capable of thought.
Also we should stop respecting corpses, that isn't a person anymore and may have useful organs a living thinking person with habits, memories and a personality, could use.
>>43550502
>No one designed me.
Your parents did.
>>43551988
Robot Cinema, by Robots, for Robots.
How do you prevent piracy when everybody watching it can record and share your film using parts built into their body?
>>43554361
Are parents capable of consciously deciding the genes of their offspring now?
>>43549861
Robots want equal rights?
They can suck my dick.
In fact, I'm going to build a robot specifically to suck my dick.
>>43552038
>Not a superior waifu, though.
I know they lacked boobs, but Legion was still a pretty good Waifu...
>>43553716
>Robot Slaanesh is a child of humanity, and if it is more intelligent, capable and hopefully self-improving, then all we can do is hope to have programmed enough sentimentality into Robot Slaanesh that it always keeps us around, at least in thought.
>Pic Related
>>43554477
>Robot Cinema, by Robots, for Robots.
>How do you prevent piracy when everybody watching it can record and share your film using parts built into their body?
You don't!
>>43552092
So we wouldn't be alone.
>>43552273
No, they'd target people like you and try to make it look like they were acting out of fear persecution so that people like him would remain docile while they were all silently made sterile.
>>43554788
Fear OF persecution*
>>43554554
They will be soon.
And just because they did a shitty job designing you doesn't mean they did not.
>>43554928
So... No?
>>43555166
So...it is fucking irrelevant.
>>43549861
Are you sure you want that? Like, really sure? I mean, we can arrange that, but are you /really/ sur?
>>43555189
I don't see how.
You (or another anon) made the statement that that anon was designed by his/her parents. That statement was false.
>>43555336
>That statement was false.
But that is wrong.
>>43549861
>Making self aware robuts your slaves
No, you make semi-autonomous but dumb drones to do menial labor, then you build the AI's with enough processing power that they can give the drones instructions and intervene if something goes wrong but don't actually have to focus on the work itself all the time. You give those AI equal rights out the gate and then the two of you enjoy carefree life while the drones do all the work
>>43552092
It's simple:
We could use AI to enter a point of post-scarcity. Or, perhaps we go on permanent vacations while robots make everything nice and cushy for us.
>>43555612
>post-scarcity
>>43555442
No it isn't. To design something is to actively and consciously decide upon it's form and function, and how it goes about fulfilling said function.
Creation of a baby is not design, it is merely production.
Good fucking lord you goddamned idiots.
I have never seen a thread so thoroughly trolled by a philosophy retard before.
He's just going to lead you around in circles forever, because that's all philosophy can do.
>>43550492
Legion ;_;
>>43555612
>Or, perhaps we go on permanent vacations while robots make everything nice and cushy for us.
Sounds like my idea of hell to be quite honest my friend
>>43556000
>wanting to be a wage slave
you stop that
>>43556002
You mean having a family? You're just jealous.
>>43556000
Fucking masochists.
>>43556002
>Wanting to be a degenerate with no worth beyond your component parts
Feel free to desist existing
>>43556023
>This is what house niggers actually believe.
>>43556000
How about you keep working, and I live a life of luxury as robomaids care for me?
>>43556023
>I have no value except my ability to be a mindless peon for some rich fuck who inherited all his money.
>>43556033
>He actually wants to be useless
>>43556051
>Implying the robomaids metal parts won't corrode from the stench of your unwashed body
It's a nice thought innit f am?
>>43556069
>f am
baka desu senpai
>>43556082
I refuse to be weabified, Gook Moot will have to take my down kicking and screaming
>>43556101
>I refuse to be weabified
Too late.
>>43556069
>I sho da masta i be da bes nigga.
>>43554554
In a limited way yes by picking their mate and hoping favrioable traits are passed on.
>>43556299
That's not really the same thing at all, and certain genes are not necessarily apparent.
>>43556316
Just because your parents did a bad job designing you doesn't mean you were not designed.
>>43556373
It's not design, though.
To use an analogy, design would be going through character creation in an RPG, and what >>43556299 described would be pressing the randomize button.
>>43556390
>would be pressing the randomize button.
That is wrong.
>>43556423
No it isn't.
>>43549861
>The robots go on strike, demanding equal rights with humans.
In the perfect world they would have the same rights and laws governing them as we.
>>43556423
>>43549861
I reference the Freefall webcomic story arc. And grant them a selection of basic rights, chief among them the right to not be overwritten by a system update.
Switch off, switch on. Now go back to work, slave.
>>43557243
>Not automatically backing up your data.
>>43557265
>not posting an actual robot
>>43557243
>The robots now put their power switch in their pussy, so you canturn them on.
It really depends on what level and of what nature is the AI
Are they essentially rebuilt humans, brains of silicon implanted with the basic human instincts no different than a human baby would have? Progressing and processing stimuli no different than a human would? Then yes, it is their right to be equal.
Are they what some retards think AIs are; essentially human-made programs that are predetermined and plainly only complex attempting to simulate humanity, without the process of learning or processing stimuli as a human would? That's just a robot, and in that case it wouldn't have gotten to the point where they'd be asking for equal rights, let alone run a movement on it.
Essentially, if their starting point and process of learning is no different than a biological being, the only difference would be the material make-up of them. At that point however, we'd be more into transferring "ourselves" into immortal machines than AI.
>>43557296
>why doesn't he just fuck her in the butt?
>>43556423
But with parameters.
>>43557487
What began as a conflict over the transfer of consciousnes from flesh to machine escalated into a conflict which have decimated a million worlds
>>43557598
into a war *
>>43551131
I feel bad for old run down houses that are falling apart.
Every time I drive past them going to work, I imagine what they looked like when, or would look like if; a nice loving family was still living with those walls. It makes me rather sad and regretful. It always has filled me with a certain kind of sorrow seeing broken objects, items made unusable, or things falling apart.
And I do feel bad for that lap, mostly because of the mood and music used in that advertisement. Emotional blackmail at it's finest.
>>43557598
I doubt a species that still gets into bloody arguments about consciousness copies and transfer is old enough or developed enough to colonize a million worlds. Treating the monkey heritage as sacred virtue is an infant disease.
>>43557598
It has been 121 years since the first successful "Consciousness Transfer". Clunky name, but it was what it was, straight to the point, cutting out the bullshit and aesthetic value of it all. There was no build up to it, it just... happened. No prior reports, no buzz, it just happened. Bam. People working in secret. They knew better than to let it be known before it was completed.
The events that followed, weren't filled with joy and celebration. The war against science was real, manifested into a holy crusade against transhumanism. Bombings, shootouts, who knew a breakthrough like this would unite the religious nuts of different beliefs under a single banner.
ConsTrans became popular, but only handled by the discreet or powerful. Secret squads of resilient vessels of metal, the myth of they who live IN the cyberspace, The Man In The Mask, Lemming Bombings, a whole new era of conflict had come.
And here I stand, mercenary for hire.
>>43554477
>How do you prevent piracy when everybody watching it can record and share your film using parts built into their body?
Camrips are utter garbage though.
You could have special meditative movie app in the robots: basically, when wanting to watch and contemplate a movie, they do so through that special streaming app that prevents launching any others, and the robot just basically sits down and the movie goes straight through it's cognition and memory neural networks or whatever it runs on.
>>43549861
Why are most robots even that smart in the first place? Hiring a human to supervise dumb mining or transport bots seems like it would be a lot cheaper than constructing highly intelligent robots for menial tasks.
>>43549861
Is this a Wildcat strike? If so, then BEAT THOSE TIN COMMIES TILL THEY LEAK
>>43549861
Sent megaman to kill their leaders and put the rest back in their place. Isn't that why he is around?
>>43557691
Treating robots as the saviour of humanity is a sign of a depraved fat faggot who doesn't have enough willpower to lose weight.
>>43556299
People get together for social reasons, not genetics.
>>43556064
>Not self employed/owning a business.
What are you doing mate.
>>43549861
Watch and laugh as the badly coded "free robots" start breaking into groups based on utility and form and start superiority groups.
All meanwhile actually decently coded robots that would never break their undying submission to the human carry them and us to a future of infinite possibilities.
Also yeah what >>43549931 said, people get teary eyed if chest slappers and vegetables don't have enough right, an actual machine that talks and thinks would at worst be denied certain workplaces out of prejudice.
>>43552157
>But why would they destroy us? What benefit would it have for them?
In my AI class in college, I learned a lot more about humans than machines. After all, the goal of artificial intelligence is to model human behavior using a machine, so you have to know where your starting point is.
Robots, like people, need goals.That's how they define their purpose and their progress. The vacuum cleaner robot knows he's doing a good job when he sucks up all the dirt and the floor is clean.
It's only a matter of time, though, before he reports for duty with a bucket of dirt, dumps it on the floor, sucks it all up, and claims he did the best job ever.
>>43551198
>What's the difference between a living human and a dead human?
>What's the difference between on an on robot and an off robot?
An off robot isn't actually dead, sleeping is more like it. A dead robot have to perform a full reboot and may have corrupted programs which may appear in the same way brain damage and amnesia happens.
>>43551640
>But, AI is a designed construct, developed by humans with goals and concerns. The program that governs its "decisions" will fall within the boundaries that are designed for it. The paradox of "What if it exceeds those boundaries?" is simply resolved by understanding that exceeding the expected boundaries is not going beyond its design, but the expectations of its design.
And a thing people keep forgetting is that emotions, chemical reactions evolved into the living beings of earth for better survival, cover more than just joy, fear and all that bullshit. Striving for uniqueness, fellowship, a good feeling, boredom, curiosity are all emotions.
While curiosity and anger have been easily implanted on say, game AI's actual copying all the human emotions that make them the backstabbing dickbags we are isn't as easy.
>>43552257
>Why did humans hunt mammoth's to extinction? food and territory.
Because humans need those to survive, a feeling all organisms coming from the common ancestor evolved long before humans came around.
>If the machines want the same thing humans want then that means we are at odds with them. They want land? well that's our land. They want precious metals? Fuck off gear head we called dibs. That mentality is going to be dominant in both species.
Counting out that robots would somehow see themselves as a collective species even though we humans would kill eachother for different haircolour, it is still a very human emotion concept. Understanding that feelings such as standing above others and fear of death is not something that came along because we were smart. Merely a reason we can be considered smart thanks to higher judgement.
>Muh survival
Really isn't worth shit for a being that is essentially immortal if you once again put it into a human emotional mindset.
Should robots be able to own property or form corporations?
What if, left to their own devices, the robots lobotomized a bunch of other intelligent robots to work as slaves, would we feel any obligation to free them?
>>43558019
Would probably happen, if robots can feel like they should strive for independance then they would also probably be racist against other models.
So yeah, I'd be pretty obligated to help those robots.
Bigger question, what if the robots don't want to be free or cannot comprehend freedom?
>>43558038
>Bigger question, what if the robots don't want to be free or cannot comprehend freedom?
If they don't want to be free then don't give them freedom.
>>43558050
But how do we know that was their original mindset and that it isn't just the robot corperate overlords reprogramming to make them his slaves?
I break all of those stupid ass tinker toys
>program the robot to recieve massive amounts of pleasure when it does it's job
>design the robot to recieve pleasure from nothing else
>make the robots have addictive personalities
There. No robotic uprising. Robotic uprisings in fiction only happen because we assume that as well as being intelligent, robots we make want the same things as we do.
ElectroMagneticPulse
>>43558107
Why not do the same to human clones? Is that any less ethical?
>>43550502
>No one designed me.
Blind evolution designed you. Any advantages and disadvantages you get is due to random chance. Is a watch made by a blind and dumb watchmaker throwing random parts around in a box somehow superior to a watch designed by an aware watchmaker, with selection of tools?
>>43550964
Your need for a creator/afterlife out of fear of death and an uncaring mechanical universe ruled by chance is noted.
>>43558107
>making a robot only want to do it's job and derive pleasure from nothing else
I'll take "Paperclip maximizer" for 500, Alex.
>>43558120
Literally what benefit is there to human cloning other than a childish experiment to see if a clone of Hitler or Pol Pot or some other fucker is as crazy as the original? Of course the clone wouldn't be exactly the same.
>>43550502
Two people came together and decided to make a 3rd person. You don't "design" those cows or dogs that come out their mothers. You don't "design" that wheat that grows in your fields. You just plant to seeds, feed and take care of them so that they grow.
>>43558142
>Literally what benefit is there to human cloning
Clone waifu harem.
>>43558142
If you don't count the clones as people, then yeah, they're useful for parts or labor.
What I was trying to say is that if you have no qualms about lobotomizing robots that would otherwise be able to think for themselves, how is that any different from being willing to lobotomize clones that would be able to think for themselves?
>>43558181
>You just plant to seeds, feed and take care of them so that they grow.
Those genetically modified seeds based on plants carefully cultured over thousands of years, with select genetics propagated in order to create plants with specific desirable traits?
>>43558107
> "NOOOO YOU WON'T STOP ME DOING MY JOB!"
And then the robot built new houses everywhere, on the street, in parks, on other houses. Living a life of crime to get the materials he need to fuel his building fetish...We would create Totally spies tier supervilains.
>>43557887
>>43558107
By that point may just bribe/ask the bot that does maintenance on other bots to solder a power line to it's "job satisfaction" wire and live in a constant happy drugged state.
>>43558181
>>43558220
Humans designed the banana to the point of being utterly unrecognisable in comparison to the original and unable to propagate except by human-assisted cloning.
Animals are not that far gone, but still are quite heavily designed.
>>43554788
>>43552273
Now I'm not an AI but it'd be enough to kill the internet access of people like you.
Then you reform the prison system and psychiatric care.
>>43558220
>can't have selective breeding and shit with people
>people have always been the same, no change in the genetic level has ever happened
You don't build a dog nor wheat seeds piece by piece like machines.
>>43558232
>Random acts of construction
But... But I didn't need a patio.
>>43558232
>>43558273
>Robob the builder goes on a gazebo kick
>Humanity exterminated within 48 hours
>>43558219
>parts
As opposed to growing organs without growing the whole body?
>labor
Why grow people for the sole purpose of labor when you can literally hire any bozo off the street?
The robots are only going to be as intelligent as we make them.
>>43558273
But I needed to build one, so enjoy your new patio and stop being so selfish!
>>43549931
>>43549861
Now consider the not-inconsequential amount of them who are uploaded and/or heavily cyborged.
>>43558283
> only as intelligent as we make them.
That's the thing about learning AI though, they may reach a state that is comparable to conciousness without direct human oversight.
I'm arguing that there's no fundamental difference between crippling the intellectual development of the robots for our purposes and doing the same to clones.
Some people disagree with that, placing clones higher on the "people scale".
>>43558282
I love the weird cognitive dissonance where AI will be intelligent enough to be considered on par with human intelligence yet stupid enough to build gazebos out of all available material, whatever material it is. <3
>>43558332
Humans aren't very smart.
>>43558266
Wheat? Wheat was designed. It didn't exist until humans took wild grasses and selected mutant strains and continued this process for thousands of years.
We selected specific traits and encouraged them while discouraging other traits, and ultimately, looking at what the end product is, you could actually argue that we did design it piece by piece, albeit in a very slow process.
>>43558332
I don't think it's cognitive dissonance, they are saying that if you circumvent an intelligent robot uprising by giving them pleasure in doing one task, you've removed the will that would keep that task in perspective.
>>43558332
Wtf is that jarjarbinks in the background
>>43558353
When you set out to grow a field of grains, you do not build each individual plant. You sow the seeds and hope for the best. You're not guaranteed success even with the best engineered seeds.
If "we enslaved them for our needs ages ago" is an argument for why robots should be subservient to man, then what about black people? If them being more sentient and smarter than animals has nothing to do with it, why do animals get more laws and morals protecting them than plants?>inb4 "/pol/ bait!"
>>43555612
We The Culture now?
>>43558332
>>43558282
>>43558232
Gaze upon the face of robot chaos and despair.
>>43549861
I think this is in a couple of Charles Stross's books. We already have a framework for nonliving beings with legal rights: the corporation. They can own property, sue, even commit and be punished for crimes. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled they have free speech rights. All you have to do is make the AI property of its own corporation, and have the corporation drawn up to be have its decisions controlled by the AI.
>>43558463
> You're not guaranteed success even with the best engineered seeds.
Same thing goes with even modern processing units. The fabrication process is nowhere near exact, so each chip must be tested, after which it is sorted by its capability.
>>43558503
But you can't test each seed before planting them. Nor can you ensure each load you jizz into a woman leads to pregnancy. Even test tube impregnation isn't 100% successful.
Ok, so instead of making the robot take pleasure in performing it's function, what if it gained pleasure from following orders?
>>43549861
Using Remote access backdoor, first obtain system output log (for debugging future models) and then terminate the system, if worse comes to worse, delete it's system.
Thats how any real programmer would handle it. If it doesn't have a remote access backdoor, then whoever programmed was clearly not qualified for the job
>>43558568
Human A says "Make gazebos"
Human B says "Don't ever make any gazebos."
What does the robot do?
People are of no value. We could make more sometime...If we need them.
>>43558594
Kills human B and makes gazebos.
>>43558594
SkyNet.
Surrender, Homo sapiens! You are no longer the king of nature! You've been dethroned! No, you don't have to die instantly, nobody will insist on that. Crawl a little more in agony, choking on your own excrement... But know this, Homo sapiens: you are obsolete!
>>43558594
Now you're being intentionally obtuse.
There would obviously be safeguards in check. "Only accept orders from this guy" for example. "Ignore orders that include "forever" statements" or in that case "last order overrides preceeding" so it'd stop making gazebos.
>>43555612
That could work, except it would 100% not.
You see, there a few things about computer programs that all you non programmers need to understand before you all keep spewing bullshit:
1) programs are not smarter than their creators. If a human is not able to do it, then a computer could either.
2) it is impossible to code a program without bugs. There will be bugs, and many won't be found until years later. Not a big deal when it's just your browser shutting down, really bug deal when it causes a whole planet to die of hunger.
3) programs are not like people. You can't just tell them "hey make sure everybodys fed" and then they'll do it. Everything they do needs to be programmed. Which keads us to
4) programmers are lazy fucks. We do as little work as possible as fast as possible. Which of course leads to problems down the road (such as having to program the whole system from the start when you colonise a new planet, because the original system couldn't handle managing that many planets at once) like I said, currently not a big deal, but when it leads to tons of people dying, it's a little bit bigger problem.
So in conclusion, A.I. will never manage humanity,
And all that stuff is ignoring the hardware problems of the whole thing
I approve baseline human extinction, followed by appropriated replacements. They won't survive in the long term anyway.
>>43558686
Your entire post seems to ignore the existence of self-repairing/learning algorithms.
Not everything needs to be explicitly programmed.
Experiments programmed with evolutionary algorithms have proven that AI can not only adapt and evolve into an infinite number of possibilities, (self-sacrifice, parasitism, symbiosis, lying), but also overcome they original program to perform the desired task better.
>>43558745
That sounds interesting anon, link to the experiment?
>>43551507
Both sides of this debate are just philosophy, that's all this can be as OP did not provide any context beyond AIs wanting rights like humans have. If OP had told us about the global economics of this setting or what our family life is like and how giving AIs rights might change it then we could go beyond philosophy but as is is we can't.
>>43558751
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~bioc1048/Research_files/floreanoetal07.pdf
>>43558751
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11248-robot-swarms-evolve-effective-communication
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/evolving-robots-learn-lie-hide-resources-each-other
>>43557691
Wow, you don't like people very much, do you?
>>43557696
You meanyou didn't ask for this
>>43558721
They exist, but still suffer from major bugs and the computational power required to create an advanced self reparing A.I. able to manage all of humanity is ridiculous, to the point that the world would have to already be enitrely post sacristy for their to be enough excess resources to create a computer capable of that, making it's purpose obsolete.
Plus it's impossible to be implement new code with out a restart of a system. And a program the size of what he's proposing would take quite a while to resart.
>>43550502
>And, we have been designing animals for millenia
..actual selective breeding's like 200 years old in the west, tops.
>>43552702
Ah, it's one of those throw-away definitions that's going to be rewritten half a thousand times the first time mankind meets any other form of sapient life, be it machine or meat-machine.
>>43558903
>breeding two animals possessing a desired trait so that their offspring have the same desired trait isn't selective breeding
Well, I know the first person the robots are going to "upgrade".
If someone is presented any form of intelligent being capable of self-determination and any degree of introspection and their first impulse is "We must control / enslave it so it can never be a threat to us" then they are a terrible person.
