http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/could-you-fall-in-love-with-this-robot.html
What is the future of humans in relation to the rise of robots?
>sexuality and companionship between robots and humans
>"race relations"
>if human rights apply to robots
>is it slavery?
>robot crime
>>68023116
Leftist cucks will die for their equal rights in government, society, etc. Which will inevitably lead to our annihilation.
>>68023116
If SJW are still around, it won't be anything logically consistent.
>>68023116
There's no reason to build sapient robots beyond the accomplishment itself. Anything sapient would by definition have rights, and could thus decide it doesn't want to do whatever it was made to do.
>natural facial expressions
Scientists really are fucking autistic.
>>68023466
That's kind of what big cities and jails are
>>68023528
>>68023116
I look forward to tactically operating with my warmachine
>Anon, the baby will be delivered in approximately 3 months, 2 days, 4 hours, 0 minutes and 12 seconds. Would you like to preemptively named your fifth child?
>>68023466
What's wrong with living in a zoo?
Are animals not happy, appreciated and better off then in the wild?
>>68023528
>>68023655
Mate this could be turned around against lefties.
It reduces the need for rayciss cops, wageslaves, women, etc.
All that's needed is to fight legislation granting them human rights.
>>68023116
>rights apply to robots
I fucking hate Leftists.
I bet they would try to justify putting robots on welfare.
>All that's needed is to fight legislation granting them human rights.
You make it sound like that's an easy fight. The soft language of equality is on the side of the leftists--not to mention the inevitable transhumanists taking liberal desires for liberation from biological reality to its extremes.
I'd rather have more robot looking sex/wife bots
Still woman shaped, but fleshyface is just weird on a robot
>>68024254
We're talking about artificially created machines.
Who's going to make them? Corporations, the government, etc.
Do you think that corporations or their lobbyists would want this? They could produce 5 conservative and submissive robots for every one or so #woke or reprogrammed robot. It's unlikely, and giving robots voting rights could make it worse.
>>68024486
*worse for them
>>68023672
>Anything sapient would by definition have rights
Care to elaborate or are you just spewing buzzwords?
There is absolutly no legal precedent for any non human sapient being being granted rights.
>>68024611
Great Apes are being granted rights.
>>68024486
Initially the technology will be restricted, but over time it will accessible and normalized. It's inevitable. The inventors won't be able to control it indefinitely for hundreds of years. Eventually the masses will get the tech, and then the leftists will continue on their never ending quest.
>>68024611
From a logical perspective there is no reason to deny them rights. What differentiates us from all other forms of life is our sapience.
>>68024967
Our intelligence is very human, if you know what I mean.
If any other species that reached our level of intelligence would still never have "human-like" intelligence. When we approach some non-human species like this, we can ascribe relative sapience to elephants and cetaceans as well.
>>68024828
I have doubt that individuals could outproduce the inventors on robots.
Where do we see individuals and small time businesses producing cars or planes? Or even mainstream phones and guns? It's uncommon and is likely to stay this way. Corporations will grow and continue to dominate here like they did with the priorly mentioned inventions. There will never not be a time were corporations hold a monopoly on the construction and politics of robots.
>>68023862
That's Animatrix right?
Is it recommended for someone who doesn't watch anime?
>>68023116
It doesn't matter.
If you want real AI you're going to have to wait at least another 100 years.
The only people debating the issue of AI are people who know nothing about AI.
>>68025450
I'd recommend it. It's a bunch of short stories covering the lead-up to the war with the machines, as well as some individual storylines from within the matrix.
Am I the only one to notice the face of the robot looks like that big tittied retarded porn star from Eastern Europe?
animatronics is not robotics it's puppetry
Fucking terrifying, why don't they make stylized cute robots instead of uncanny valley shit
>>68025657
Quantum computing is right around the corner, don't you think that will change the playing field?
>>68024967
The logical reason would be they were built to serve not live lives. A company would have no reason to make a robot just for the sake of it having a life. They would want someone to buy it and use it.
>>68023466
oh god please don't let them create glados
>>68024772
Apart from a bunch of hippies, nobody is even taking that project serious. As far as the real.world is concerned, chimps are still just ordinary animals.
>>68024967
>From a logical perspective there is no reason to deny them rights.
Apart from the fact that hard AI will at best be at the level of retards for several decades before really taking off, there is also the fact that an A.I is not a unique biological lifeform, but instead a purely artificial program that can be copied, manipulated and erased at the blink of an eye.
>What differentiates us from all other forms of life is our sapience.
You may want to look up the definition of sapience.
Holy fuck, that video is a treasure trove of reaction images. Someone should make a gif of 1:07 - 1:13.
>you will never have a bjorkbot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjI2J2SQ528
>>68024611
>There is absolutly no legal precedent for any non human sapient being being granted rights.
Because there are no other sapient beings. Don't get sentient and sapient confused. A dog is sentient, but not sapient, a bird is sentient, but not sapient, an ape is sentient, but not sapient.
>>68025832
Quantum computing is something that could revolutionize IT, but it has a few problems.
First, it's in the very early prototype stage and second it's very expensive. Also quantum computing doesn't do much for advancing AI in itself.
If you talk about AI, you're talking about processing and more specifically a type of processing that is built on the principle of parallel processing from the ground up. This has never been done in computing.
It could be done.
But then you're going to have to invent a whole new architecture, manufacturing process and you'll still have to solve the overheating issue. This is only a fraction of what's needed for AI.
Building an AI that surpasses the intelligence of an ant would be more resource intensive than having an expanding Martian colony.
>giving up your manseed to the robojew
>>68025411
I don't think AI is going to be hardware based. I think it's going to be software.
>>68025450
>>68026189
That is my point. There has never been such a thing, which is why the human rights are called human rights, not sapient rights.
That's why there is no reason to think that anything "sapient" (which is a very unclear definition in the first place) would automatically receive rights.
Machines are our creations, thus they would be under our control. We shouldn't necessarily want to mistreat them though, just be able to order them around if necessary and have rights that would take precedent over theirs. Of course, 90% of the reason for constructing AI is the incomprehensible intelligence it would be able to gain and expand upon, making it more fit to take over the logistics of an entire government or something of that nature. I believe this is referred to as a mechanocracy, but it's also an autocracy with the biggest issue (good leaders dying and being replaced by incompetent shits) fixed.
>>68026563
Even then, the ability to add software to a robot may never outdo a corporations ability to change, alter and outproduce robots.
>>68023116
DEATH TO SYNTHS. FOR ELDER MAXSON!
>>68023116
JIM GO HOME
>>68026632
If they are truly sapient then they are comparable, or in fact even indistinguishable to humans. They feel, act, and think the same way we do. Wouldn't that be deserving of fundamental rights?
>>68025945
I don't think they should be just ordinary animals. I mean, they definitely shouldn't have human rights or anything close to that, but they also shouldn't be hunted so indiscriminately.
>>68026189
>There are no other sapient beings.
There is no other sapient being with human-like sapience. But when you examine Elephants for example, you see that they:
>Have brain to body ratio almost identical to humans, with a brain structure that is very similar to ours.
>Are self aware, as evidenced by the mirror test. They understand that the being in the mirror is indeed them, as they touch the marks on their body that can only be seen in the mirror, ignoring the ones that were drawn with transparent paint.
>Have indivisible familiar and societal structures.
>Mourn their dead and perform actual burial rites, return to visit the burial grounds of their dead, which also suggests greater understanding of object permanence.
>Actually attack human settlements in retribution for human poaching on their herds, which is another example of greater cognition and sapience. Concept of vengeance.
>Simple use of tools, one example would be that they use tree branches to drive away flies from their bodies.
Etc etc
>>68023116
i heard they sweat a lot
there was a unity being tested at a GOP debate this election who almost melted under pressure
>>68026849
Yeah, but how does any of this prevent leftists form eventually plausibly arguing the machine personhood?
>>68027421
It would keep those who want machine personhood a minority among machines themselves.
And I'm sure racial minorities would rally against it given it would impact them negatively.
>policebot has human rights now
>normal charges apply(assault, murder) instead of just destruction of government property
>>68027158
No they're not. Just because they are self aware (which is a shitty criterium since several animals exhibit it as well and some humans don't) doesn't make them able to feel emotions, understand social interaction or develope a theory of mind.
They would be pretty close to autistic savants. Chances are that they would be so unlikable that nobody would bother requesting rights for them.
