http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-robotics-lawmaking-idUSKCN0Z72AY
>Europe's growing army of robot workers could be classed as "electronic persons" and their owners liable to paying social security for them if the European Union adopts a draft plan to address the realities of a new industrial revolution.
Would you give robots the vote? Legalize robot marriage? Protect robots from discrimination in the workplace?
>>14387140
I haven't heard anything of the sort in the news.
I hope it's bullshit and that there's no idiotic plan to give rights to tools.
Who the fuck would be so stupid as to confuse tools and persons? Especially if they have zero autonomy or intelligence?
>>14387164
Hey, businesses are people. Why not robots?
>>14387140
>socialists even steal from robots
hahaha oh wow
>>14387140
this bullshit article has no place on /m/
it's a bunch of vague unrelated factoids and a quote by some guy who doesn't know the difference between functional autonomy (acting based on a program) and moral autonomy (self-determination).
>>14387164
>Who the fuck would be so stupid as to confuse tools and persons?
Employers.
>Especially if they have zero autonomy or intelligence?
Have you met some of the people who work in the service industry?
>>14387175
robots own nothing
>>14387180
huh...
The point of a robot is that it can't do anything you don't want it to do.
The point of rights and obligations is to deal with the fact that people don't always do what you want them to.
Why the fuck would anyone make robots that don't always do what they're meant to do? Who would even pay to have them built?
The closer I get to sticking my dick in a sexy robot, the better.
>>14387192
In that case you should go against that plan, because if that robot is given rights, it might be allowed to refuse your dick.
>>14387192
Lois Vuitton completely ripped off Soroyama's sexy robots recently in one of its ad campaigns.
Here it is. Louis Vuitton's ad campaign mascot
It seems more about making sure there's still taxes and shit paid even if entire workforces are replaced with robots.
Which is understandable, as once you get more robots doing the jobs of humans you're going to NEED some kind of safety net for the masses of displaced humanity or everything will get ugly so fast.
>>14387184
Soon they will, but only so that socialists can steal from them.
>>14387164
It honestly sounds like they just need an excuse to drain money from businesses to prop up the social security system.
After importing boatloads of migrants that are unlikely to ever hold a stable and pay into the system, they need a new source of income to prop up all those people on government benefits.
And raising taxes would just make the working population angrier at the government.
>>14387140
And I thought the people who said animals have human rights were retarded.
>>14387655
>>14388232
Yeah, that's pretty much it. Look up terms like "The end of work." Automation is posing some pretty significant problems that may be close to unheard of in human history. A fully automated workforce sounds like paradise at first thought--the robots take care of us and nobody has to do anything they don't want to. But who pays for the upkeep of the robots, and how will the spoils of their endless labor be distributed? And as strange as it may sound, many people throughout history have relied on their jobs to provide them a sense of pride, identity, and place within their communities (construction workers being able to look at a building and say, "I helped build that," for instance). These are all issues which will have to be addressed as the Post-Post Industrial Revolution--the Robot Revolution (albeit so far a bloodless one)?--continues.
>>14390016
Robots are way more deserving of rights than animals.
>>14392042
I mean, not at this point--even the most advanced supercomputers can only simulate half of an animal consciousness for a few seconds at a time:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm
But eventually, if robots ever attain consciousness and/or an ability to feel pain--which is the basis for giving animals what rights they have, though only PETA and other kooks would think to make them equal to humans--we'll likely be ethically obligated to give them rights as well.
>>14390212
The thing is, that doesn't really address artistic endeavors and perhaps other types of work too, stuff that people do less because they have to to get a pay check at the end of the week or month or whatever, and more because they love it. Yea, currently there's not enough call there for everyone to have a job, but in a post-scarcity society of some kind where automation does all the work and no-one is paid traditionally, the paradigm has already shifted in an unprecedented fashion as is, so eveyone having the freedom to pursue their passion in some form isn't really any more of a stretch - with the money generated by sales of paintings, songs, plays and even movies made purely by people but filmed by robots, instead of those along with construction, fishing and whatever else.
Not that I think it's a worry for a long time, if ever, since even if robots can automate all work, specialization that arises from the social circumstances that arise because of it will almost certainly keep people working new jobs, inventing new things that robots can't or shouldn't do anyways.
>>14387178
>Implying we have moral autonomy, and aren't subject to the same deterministic laws that robots are.
Goddamn Omnics.
