Read on Twitter
is this good? or na
more specific framing from the article:
"Robot owners should not have obligations, but ensuring that they do not is the responsibility of robot builders. Robot builders are ethically obliged -- obliged to make robots that robot owners have no ethical obligations to"
"Robot owners should not have obligations, but ensuring that they do not is the responsibility of robot builders. Robot builders are ethically obliged -- obliged to make robots that robot owners have no ethical obligations to"
"... it seems that a large proportion of science-fiction consumers are comfortable with a conclusion that anything that perceives, communicates and remembers is owed ethical obligation."
can you imagine saying this about black people
can you imagine saying this about black people
or any other slaves? or pets or food animals?
Like, "it seems that just because a being acts like it& #39;s sentient, these idiots want to treat it with compassion!" (soyface)
interesting distinction here https://twitter.com/bi_gendian/status/1313244244598034435?s=19">https://twitter.com/bi_gendia...
consider two beings:
a robot
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🤖" title="Robotergesicht" aria-label="Emoji: Robotergesicht"> that acts and looks human. made of machines, some of which were designed by humans and some by AI.
a replicanthttps://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🤵" title="Person in tuxedo" aria-label="Emoji: Person in tuxedo">, which is genetically engineered from human DNA but is mass produced instead of born.
should either of these beings be slaves?
a robot
a replicant
should either of these beings be slaves?
either way listen to @IGRRpod for more complicated ethical takes https://twitter.com/cat_upgrades/status/1313264788919791618">https://twitter.com/cat_upgra...
