If robots one day became almost humanlike and were able to learn, would you consider them worthy of rights?

[Agape93]

[Investigator]

I've been watching the anime SAO, or Sword Art Online, lately. In the 4th Season *spoilers*, we learn of a company called Rath has created a technology called the STL (short for Soul Translator) that can interact with certain particles in the brain called "fluctuating lights" or "Fluctlights". This is referred to, in-universe, as a soul, and it's based on a real hypothesis called quantum brain dynamics.

In short, both the show and quantum field of science take a meta-materialistic approach to how the mind works inside the brain, believing it to be dependent on quantum perturbations that can be observed and measured and not so much a supernatural, mystical element. In the show, Rath develops a way to create "bottom-up AI"; where "top-down AI" (which I what we have right now) is built around the idea of using machine learning to extrapolate trends from massive data sets and then produce patterns using those extrapolations, bottom-up AI is designed to recreate the conditions that develop "human learning", i. e. it is designed to create an AI that develops like a human, but which the development can be accelerated. In effect, a bottom-up AI is literally indistinguishable from a living person because--for all intents and purposes--it is a person.

While this technology is still a work of fiction, already there are indications that it may only be a matter of time. A company called Luminous Computing is developing AI accelerator technology, based on light emissions --a form of quantum data transmission with bandwidth limitations that far exceeds anything silicon is capable of and not too dissimilar from the idea of observing quantum fluctuations in the brain. Before now, I would have said "'robots that are basically humans' is still a ways off", but now I'm not so sure. At the rate of technological advancement (assuming the researchers are trying to go for something akin to a "bottom-up" approach), I'd say we're only maybe a decade or two away from having a "mind-on-a-chip".

This isn't technically an answer, but the long-and-short of it is, "right now, no. Robots are not human-like enough to qualify, but that may change when their software matches ours."

[Prg11]

That is... not something likely to happen, if not ever, certainly not for a good 100 years (and probably a lot lot longer).
First of all, humans struggle with the most basic understanding of each other - and with letting each other live (in fact, most are obsessed by sabotaging the lives of other human beings - executing gradual murders of sorts, religiously).
Apart from the human inability to live with each other (which may suddenly self resolve, say after a large scale conflict in which those bent on murdering end up killing each others, so the harmonious ones, the ones who can live/coexist with others, remain) there is a problem of mathematics - all robotics are based on mathematics, whereas humans (and mammals in general) are based on interacting _with each other_.
So, first we would have to have machines that can interact with each other/group or isolate from groups, group-think, group-decide, elect leaders, create own rules, live by them, suffer by them when they come up with wrong rules etc. Only then could we talk about intelligent robots - and, even then, it is a big question how good any of those would be.
Humans are exceptionally proud of the brainpower they have got, the accomplishments of the human race, yet the reality is that human history is loaded with grave mistakes of leaders/leadership councils that, confidently as they appeared, led large groups of people into huge disasters and large scale suffering (even if over 90% of those mistakes were obvious - I see such mistakes being made now, and there simply isn't anyone to phone and talk to about it - you can't warn a president's or prime minister's office of something that the country is doing wrong and get it resolved - at best, they will take it onboard, but you'd end up having to manage their affairs every single day).

America ruined it for all of us when they declared 'ignorance is fine as long as you are American' back in 1990s - since then, idiots have progressively taken over most spheres of life.
In that context, and in the context of the advertised AI mostly being cheap Indian call centre labour pretending to be computer software - I would not hold my breath for humanoid looking, nor for actually intelligent, machines, before the 22nd century at least.

[DanaeAdam5]

Yes. If they become nearly human like I don't see a reason why they shouldn't have human rights.

If we give them human rights we can also give them responsibilities such as taking on more dangerous/risky jobs. Seems like a win-win situation to me.

[wheresmrcunnunglis]

hell no, I dont even want them to become a thing. We can't even provide healthcare for all of our citizens and find a solution for homelessness amongst other things but we wanna build goddamn androids for what?

[HighlyVolatile]

I think I'd need a gazillion details to make up my mind. If it's a case like Data in Star Trek: TNG, then I'd probably side with Picard in favor of giving Data individual rights and ownership over himself.

Yet that's a very peculiar case where no one actually understands how Data works (with the exception of Dr. Soong who created him who isn't around). So we can't say whether or not he's sentient in that case.

We have no idea about his sentience or lack thereof, but what we do know in that case is that treating him that way has made him a most valuable member of his community. So without knowing for sure, I'd err on the side that he is sentient, and should be treated as such with rights of his own.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/hmKLSqmv3FE

Yet this is a sci-fi scenario that I think is very unlikely to occur in the real world of some genius scientist leaving us with an android whose engineering we don't understand at all.

[HighlyVolatile]

There might also be a practical argument in favor of giving sufficiently advanced and autonomous androids ownership over themselves even if we're muddled about the ethics. They might function better in society by having self-ownership.

[Guy13]

Robots can not learn, however, they can be taught how to think.-Leftist MEDIA and ACADEMIA approach.

Robots do not have Being. Ones with Soul have Being. Learning is a daily blank slate and Doing within our designed Attributes. Our Being/Soul/Intellect senses/perceive…
And our Mechanistic brain 🧠 processes as connecting agent to Body.

A computer will never be able to learn anew as computer can only function within the Language or Code that it has been programmed in. A robot will never possess a Soul or Actual Intellect.

[hahahmm]

Nope. It'd have to be 100% human like plus be impossible for someone to hack. Otherwise you're opening the door for bad stuff. Where does it end? Some guy could say he created 2 billion "almost humanlike" minds in a computer and they have all agreed with him to vote for what he wants. Not because he brainwashed them or forced them to, he says. They just happen to see the wisdom of his beliefs. Now that programmer is king of the world if you're stupid enough to trust him. Or a factory could mass produce 300 million robots and they happen to do whatever the factory owner tells them to. Same thing.

[hahahmm]

That said, if we aver have human like robots they will need to have laws protecting them similar to how pets are protected against abuse.

[ohshee]

They are so human like right now you would not be able to even tell that they are a robot and you know damn well that there is one crazy fucker out there then it's going to have to program when did the evil and that's all it takes computers a computer a hack is a hack but we are so stupid as human beings and we are so greedy if we think different look at all the crap that goes on a computer right now about people hacking into everything anything it'll be the same way with robots we are just stupid stupid human beings one day robots will probably take over but what I don't really understand is that as a human being and you have children you want to make this place a better place for your kids and all we are doing is destroying it for our kids we're putting our kids and so many Harms ways it's unreal

[NamerOfStars]

This isn't so theoretical a question as you may believe. What are robots used for? Well, they have many applications, but let's consider a few that'd you'd rely on them specifically for: firefighting, lifeguarding, and minesweeping. All very dangerous activities that a machine could survive where a human wouldn't; it makes sense to not risk someone.

But if you want the robot to preserve itself, you need an equivalent of fear. Even if the danger is LESS to a robot than to a human, it could still be damaged or destroyed. And if you stop at giving them animal-level intelligence (putting aside questions of how you'd quantify that), well, there are still animal cruelty laws, no? It's a question we're going to have to address, and sooner than many think.

[Static_In_The_Attic]

As for us we have an onboard computer called a brain, we have cameras called eyes, we have sensors such as a nose, ears, etc. As for robots they have onboard computers, cameras, sensors & more. So under those grounds I would grant robots rights as long as they can abide by laws.

[andreasderjuengere]

To reserve ''rights'' only for humans is kind of racist.

I think that any being deserves ''rights'' when it:
- has a consciousness about its individuality/singularity, and its existence
- the ability to wish and to want, and the ability to not want
- the ability to consciously and intentionally interact (and communicate) with its environment; and to do this consistently
- the ability to sustain its existence by own initiative
- the ability to claim and to make use of/apply its ''rights''

Where ''rights'' is a much mis-used term (especially in the U. S.) - to recklessly do whatever crosses my mind certainly is NOT a ''right'' :)

[Datboi65]

You realize that self-autonomy in Artificial Intelligence can be a threat to humanity, right? What is to say that they will not wipe us off the face of the earth? Truth be told, there needs to be a level of dependence. A hierarchy needs to be maintained that humans > robots, because humans are living creatures, and robots are man-made creations. Definitely not the same, and they shouldn't be regarded as such.

[DontTouchMySosij]

Dude they're jus programmed to do the things they do and say. They're not actually thinking or conscious

[Datboi65]

@DontTouchMySosij As of right now, that's true. OP was asking about a point when robots are able to learn like humans and have the free will of humans, hence "human-like". Only difference is that they are more physically capable than us, so that's a recipe for disaster.

[DontTouchMySosij]

yeah if that's even possible to think for themselves lol. Unless the developer programmes them to take over. Never gonna happen lol

[Datboi65]

@DontTouchMySosij That's irrelevant. In this hypothetical scenario, they shouldn't be seen as equal to humans, but a threat to humanity. That's the whole point of the discussion, not whether or not you believe it's possible.

[Im_a_girl_lol]

i don't think so.. but saudi arabia has given sophia (an ai robot) citizenship. like she's literally a citizen of saudi arabia!

Sophia

Sophia literally said she will 'destroy humans' in an interview, and i know that she is programmed and all that but seriously.. in the future, robots really could destroy us.

[NatashaEbony]

It depends on whether they are "conscious". AI can already take in information and learn from it, that doesn't equal sentience.

If they become self aware with emotions and the like, then for sure they should have a say as to the world they live in.

[Mango-man]

The better question is: "Would fully sentient AI consider us worthy of keeping around? We do a lot of nonsensical or illogical stuff even if we know beforehand that it is bad for us or has unpleasant consequences. From AI's point of view we would be imperfections.

[ShoopDaWoop]

As someone who has played Detroit Become Human, I still don't have a sure answer to this. But since I doubt they would ever be able to portray emotion as naturally as they did in that game I think I lean more towards no. At least not human rights. There's definitely room for debate on moral concerns here though.

[VinnyMac]

I don't really think giving robots rights is a good idea and should never happen. We can refer to robots as humanize, but at the end of the day they're still robots and they're not human. Robots require humans to be made and without us they would not exist. If we were to change the order of things then I feel that everything would go out of whack. Would the robots try to rule over us or create other robots? They may appear "almost human like," but they don't possess a brain, a heart or a soul.

[bannacookies]

No. The whole human looking robots kinda seem very creepy to me. I can see robots taking on dangerous jobs that can harm people like firefighters, but why make them look human. It's just not normal, and no matter how human they are, it's still a computer. So I'll have to say no.

[purplepoppy]

Half the users on gag are against basic human rights for many real humans. I don't hold up much hope for humans.

[supercutebutt]

https://youtu.be/VtaNBfzbL1A

[Hanrej]

Yes.
They would however have "rights" that pretty much all machines allready have. The right to service, The right to dry storage, The right to maintanence.

Ok... Machines don't actually have rights but we're pretty fucked if we started disregarding what machines need.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Maybe not the robots themselves, but they'll still have human owners with property rights that warrant respect. Plus, inflicting unwarranted abuse on them harbors a contempuous spirit, which we ought not do to ourselves.

[thethug1234]

That's the scary question about p-zombies, if a machine can mock human behavior why would it possess consciousness?

Consciousness!= BRAIN. Go google "DMT materialism" (without quotes).

[Oigit]

I have to say yes. Because having them around could help balance out all the stupid crap we humans do. That and giving them the same rights could help ensure they don't take over.

[Anpu23]

As I am one of those who profit from robotics and AI this is a moral dilemma I often contemplate.

I suppose when they become completely independent and self sufficient we will have to look at it then.

[Xianmei]

I do believe they're more than worthy to have rights. I hope I don't sound passive-aggressive for this rhetoric but, we give rights to animals and our environment no? So why not robots in the future? (Edit: Comparing robots to animals is not a derogatory intent on my part, so sorry. 😭)

[SkyCastle90]

You'll love this game.
Detroit: Become Human

[JayParris]

I think that if humanity wasn't such a horrible species in general, we wouldn't need to worry about what has rights and what doesn't. What are rights other than ways in which you are not allowed to abuse something or someone?

[Aerissa_Jade]

Probably not, as you would need to be human to have human rights. Since they'd also be superior to humans in every way, might not be a good idea to treat them as equals or they might enslave humans.

[honeynut-scenarios]

For them to breed, and collaborate a plan to come back and kill us all later? no thank you.

[supercutebutt]

They would have the right to be basted in garlic and butter. I am looking forward to the first edible robots.

[DCooper]

Why not? I mean it's likely a lot of them would quickly learn to say they identify as human, and have the right to be acknowledged as human anyway. And who could argue with that?

[Deathraider]

I mean at a certain point, the distinction becomes arbitrary. How would you tell the difference between a human and a robot other than one is fleshy and the other isn’t? Is there any nontrivial differences?

[Alwayreckles93]

Who knows maybe the robots would have more understanding and loyal then a human look how crazy the world has become I don't see why not.

[fonduegirl]

It'd be wise not to. Like, they can have robot rights but not in terms of voting and everything, yk? I mean look what happened to humans! Political world is shit. I wouldn't ruin a robot for it 🥺

[LimboOfTheDink]

https://youtu.be/TryOC83PH1g

[FreyaRed]

No. Robots will belong to their owner, therefore they will be property and will have property rights.

[andreasderjuengere]

I suppose you support the ''Dixie Way'' as well?

[ODC2112]

Learning for robots means repeating the statistical regularities of a process. If it is intended that the fact that they can learn makes them valid for rights, voice recorders should already have them.

[PhenomenalQueen]

No because eventually they would try to take over… lol

[wingattebaby16]

maybe..

as long as they follow Asimov's 3 Rules for Robotics.

[Ninania]

Of course there should be control of how people treat them, so some rights sure, but not human rights. They'd get their own section.

[Ninania]

It also highly depends on how sentient they become. A robot gas already been programmed to learn, but it's still just a machine and thus an object belonging to an owner. Humanoids with free will, however, would become something else as their owner no longer can be held accountable for their actions.

[Ninania]

Has*

[Bourbon_]

I am interested in AI but not in terms of rights just what they can think of that we can’t

[ChiTown33]

Of course not. A computer will never know more than what you program it to know. Ergo it will never be sentient

[Massageman]

They can't learn in the way that humans learn.
They can respond by programmed algorithms, not really learning, though.
No rights for my sex robot, though - sorry.

[anylolone]

What makes one human is the ability to communicate and reason with each other.
Anything that reaches that capacity counts as a human to me.

Anything that has been shown to mature into that is an infant.

[Cherry234]

If they could learn and they are sentient beings then I do think they should have rights.

[virtue2332]

I say treat them like you want to be treated when they take over

[Sour-rose]

Now hold on now... I don't think we should be letting things with no soul be thinkin' its human.

[andreasderjuengere]

Many humans don't have 'souls', either?

[Sour-rose]

@andreasderjuengere I said what I said. :)

[Northernlights25]

No. Nothing without a soul is equal to man. Creating facsimilies doesn't equate to replicating human beings and any push for rights for such machines would only be misplaced emotionalism.

[Luopio27]

No. Rich people would just put up a factory to mess with the elections by programming the bots to vote in their favor.


Machines have no feelings.

[anniisa97]

"Machines have no feelings" Not unless you activate it... ever watched AI (Artificial Intelligence)? Lol

[DontTouchMySosij]

@anniisa97 someone who thinks a movie has anything to do reality shouldn't have an opinion

[DontTouchMySosij]

Machines can never have feelings, if you think they can you're retarded

[anniisa97]

@DontTouchMySosij someone who can't recognise obvious humour shouldn't be so big headed as you're making a fool out of yourself.

[anniisa97]

Jesus christ.

[MadBoy]

If at some point they become able of thinking like humans, they might as well just take over and erase humans cause they'd be better than humans.

[Guido]

Sure. If they can learn then we should elect them Presidents or Prime Ministers. They won't make the same mistakes our current idiots are making since they don't learn from their mistakes.

[Luopio27]

Im against Skynet

[TallAnon]

Why would we manufacture something of equal right? Nope, we as humans would still be using slaves if possible. They would be made subordinate or shut down.

[IveGotNoName]

Animals are anle to learn, monkeys can be very human like, and they dont have human rights.

[DontTouchMySosij]

I dunno but if you think it's even possible for a robot to ever become sentient, thinking, or conscious, you're fucking retarded

So if you're gonna give rights to robots, might aswell give rights to a chair too

[noless10in]

HELL NO there are groups of humans with special consideration that don't deserve them. I don't have to mention them they know who they are.

[OfDeath]

If they could experience pain, stress or another kind of suffering, yes. However, it would be immoral to create robots capable of that.

[DontTouchMySosij]

Also impossible

[Djaay]

Funny how people pit so much faith into objects , but tenect a livin GOD.

[Dchrls78104]

Truth. They refuse to serve their Creator and will end up serving their creations.

[Kenzy009]

Are you taking this from detroit become human? haha. No robots are property not wothy of any rights whatsoever

[crmoore]

If they were conscious in the same way that we are, yes. If they merely emulate it, no.

[Dchrls78104]

Yes; but also responsibilities, such as recognising their accountability to their human creators.

[sirderpsalot123]

Nope. I wasn't on their side when I played Detroit Become Human.

[Kenzy009]

me neither. It was kind of annoying of the narrative was soo one sided. The people had legitimet greviences when it cam to unemployment and that kind of stuff

[sirderpsalot123]

That was exactly my issue. I didn't like how the game tried to make you feel guilty for it either. It was a good game though. It was refreshing to play a decision making game where your choices actually drastically impacted the game.

[boobliker]

i don't want to ever think we will want them as it will be the death of us

[SuccessfulHornDog]

No, and anyone who can't tell the difference is brainwashed

[Joker_]

Worthy of rights, yeah. Worthy of human rights, no.