Dark Side of the Moon
General Discussion => Real World Topics => Topic started by: Alice on April 25, 2013, 08:20:51 AM
-
It seems that robots are capable of initiating the same responses in terms of making us care about them these days as other humans do, at least according to this article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423091111.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423091111.htm)
I blame making so many of them so cute. :3
-
It seems that robots are capable of initiating the same responses in terms of making us care about them these days as other humans do, at least according to this article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423091111.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423091111.htm)
I blame making so many of them so cute. :3
I don't think that's really that shocking. We're pretty good at humanising non-human things (you only have to look at how we talk to and treat pets, or even possessions like a car or computer). Plus, if I can form an emotional attachment to a fictional character sufficient to make me waste hours of my life defending her, I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to a robot....
The human mind isn't designed to handle objects which are deliberately human-like but not truly human. We didn't evolve in a world with films, TV shows, books and robots, after all. So, we tend to attach human-level emotions to them, at least subconsciously.
-
sexbots
-
inb4 Robot Sakura.
-
After watching Chobits I can't get behind the idea of robots not having emotions, at least once sufficiently intelligent
-
Well, there is no logical reason why an intelligent robot necessarily would have emotions. It depends how they're designed and how their intellectual capacity is developed (any robot that is smart enough to be considered sentient will almost certainly have their intellectual capacity developed by some sort of algorithm rather than programmed-in by hand).
-
I hope the vision of Chobits will never come true and we won't have sex slave robots.
-
Honestly, I think it's pretty inevitable that someone will try. After all, we have sex-slave humans, I don't see why robots will be treated any differently. Plus, we already kind-of do have such things, they're just extremely primitive and non-sentient.
All I hope is that, when we get to the point where robots gain sentience, people are enlightened enough to give them the rights that should go with that sentience. If we don't, then robot slavery (including sexual slavery) is inevitable.
-
I don't see robots made for sex unless for weird people. There is legal prostitution in civilized countries like Germany.
-
I don't see robots made for sex unless for weird people. There is legal prostitution in civilized countries like Germany.
Robots have fewer limits, though. You can have sex with a prostitute, but there are things they won't do, they don't necessarily look like your perfect woman and they're certainly not going to be there at any time of the day whenever you want sex. Obviously, for such a thing to really take off, you'd need robots that look and feel human, but once such a thing exists I don't see it as remotely unnatural or weird for people to want to have sex with them, because they are specifically designed to allow you to forget that they're a robot when doing so.
There are also other useful applications of producing human-like robot bodies that are sexually functional. For example, you could have virtual sex with your partner whilst they are thousands of miles away, simply by having them control the movements of your sex robot.
-
Robots have fewer limits, though. You can have sex with a prostitute, but there are things they won't do, they don't necessarily look like your perfect woman and they're certainly not going to be there at any time of the day whenever you want sex.
Your average legal prostitute has simply dignity to not pander to everything. They are providing services, so the client base must comply.
-
Robots have fewer limits, though. You can have sex with a prostitute, but there are things they won't do, they don't necessarily look like your perfect woman and they're certainly not going to be there at any time of the day whenever you want sex.
Your average legal prostitute has simply dignity to not pander to everything. They are providing services, so the client base must comply.
Yeah, which is why people will want sex bots, because those will "pander to everything"....
And, it's not quite that simple, it's more a matter of what they're comfortable with doing. It's not about "dignity", it's about what they feel comfortable doing. Different people have different limitations and restrictions (and, no, not all of them fit to your narrow idea of what is "acceptable" sex). With a robot, even if you give them a choice about what they will and won't do, the nature of their existence makes it possible to produce more variety in what they feel comfortable with, so people who have more specific desires will be more inclined to go for a robot rather than going to a prostitute who won't really fulfill their wishes.
-
and, no, not all of them fit to your narrow idea of what is "acceptable" sex
Mine more mainstream, excuse me.
. With a robot, even if you give them a choice about what they will and won't do, the nature of their existence makes it possible to produce more variety in what they feel comfortable with,
That means people make a sentient being and attempt to mould it to cater to people's need without really giving a choice. That's a slavery.
If we make sentient robots, they should be made with no specific purpose in mind than being able to choose for themselves.
Creation of new intelligent species is something profound.
-
and, no, not all of them fit to your narrow idea of what is "acceptable" sex
Mine more mainstream, excuse me.
I don't care. Just because something is not "mainstream", it does not make it wrong, and nor does it give you the right to dictate that it shouldn't happen.
That means people make a sentient being and attempt to mould it to cater to people's need without really giving a choice. That's a slavery.
Well, it's difficult to really say that. I do find the idea of creating a being so that it will cater to your needs somewhat distasteful but, at the same time, once such a being exists, it is just as entitled to follow its wishes than anyone else. And, it's difficult to really define "giving it a choice" in this context, because there is simply no way to allow a robot to choose its core programming. That's like saying that we should be allowed to choose our own genes....
Further, I think that programming all robots to have vanilla tastes would be extremely dull and restrictive (and would probably have bad results for human society if robots became prevalent). So, this is an issue that I don't think has a particularly good answer. Creating a robot for the purpose of serving humans in a particular manner does seem rather disturbing, yes, but I don't think it is really possible to just start a robot out as a blank slate and expect it to just develop a personality with no influence from the creator, particularly since robots start out as "adults" (i.e. they aren't raised like a human child), and a lack of a personality would almost certainly result in exploitation. Plus, honestly, we already do it with humans to a large extent. How a child grows up is a product of society and of their parents. I don't see why a robot would be any different.
If we make sentient robots, they should be made with no specific purpose in mind than being able to choose for themselves.
Creation of new intelligent species is something profound.
The problem is that we have to give them some kind of personality. However you choose that personality, it is automatically determining their purpose. Further, we are almost certainly going to want to produce sentient robots to perform certain tasks for us, and I'm not sure that is necessarily a bad thing, provided they are treated decently.
I also suspect that, in practice, the whole thing will be done in a much more haphazard way than this. We won't give robots rights until they can demonstrate that such rights are needed, and I think the only way they will ever start showing that is when they start acting in ways that go against their initial programming.
Also, there is another factor here, which is that it is entirely possible to produce a non-sentient sex doll which is programmed to act human-like but isn't intelligent enough to be considered alive. I see nothing wrong with that, since they're not sentient or self-aware. And, further, I wouldn't be surprised if the first sentient sex doll developed because some clever programmer in the sex doll industry accidentally designed a neural net that resulted in a sentient being. Even determining if that has happened is a difficult process, because, actually, we don't have a very good definition of what is and is not sentient.
-
Eh, people can do with non intelligent machines what they want, since they have no sentience, but if we can mimick how human minds acquire and develop personality, robots don't need to be implanted with pre-defined tastes and personality, they should acquire them on their own. If an intelligent non-human decides to be a prostitute or a scientist on its own, we should respect that. True AI should be not created as specificly crafted servants, but as our younger siblings in intelligence.
That's like saying that we should be allowed to choose our own genes....
In fact we can, genetic engineering is a thing that won't only prevent diseases caused by the make up of DNA, but improve humanity in such fields like lifespan.
-
Eh, people can do with non intelligent machines what they want, since they have no sentience,
The problem is, though, what happens if such a machine develops sentience? If people are trying to make their non-intelligent machines act more and more human, at some point one of them might become actually sentient. In such a case, you would have a being that deserves rights (and may well ask for them), but will still have programming that, on a fundamental level, makes them desire to serve humans and desire particular sexual activities.
but if we can mimick how human minds acquire and develop personality, robots don't need to be implanted with pre-defined tastes and personality, they should acquire them on their own. If an intelligent non-human decides to be a prostitute or a scientist on its own, we should respect that. True AI should be not created as specificly crafted servants, but as our younger siblings in intelligence.
Yeah, I would generally agree with that as a concept, but there are several issues with it. Firstly, human personality is at least partially genetic. Not fully, no, but genetics definitely play a part in how we end up and, for a robot, the equivalent of that would be their base programming. Sure, we can design a robot with a learning algorithm that causes them to develop in ways we don't fully control, but we can still bias that process by how we design the algorithm in the first place. Secondly, the rest of human personality is derived from our interactions with the outside world and, in particular, our parents. A robot won't have that, it will be developed in a lab and "raised" by the scientists programming it. Which means that they will have a massive amount of control over how exactly it develops.
Obviously a scientist programming a sentient robot won't be able to reliably produce a robot who wishes to become a prostitute (because that ability to choose for yourself is almost the very definition of sentience), and I would hope that the scientists in question would have enough decency to see any robots they create as something akin to their "children" rather than just as experiments to play around with, but they most certainly could have a significant influence on how the robot developed if they desired, just like bad human parents can mold their children into whatever form they desire (hence why nutty religious fanatics tend to have nutty religious fanatic children, at least for a while).
And, also, whilst I agree with you on a moral level, I strongly doubt this is how AI will actually develop. Some company will design and patent a sentient robot, and will then sell it as a product until someone points out that, actually, this is really quite shitty and that sentient beings should absolutely not be treated as slaves. However, given our past history in that respect, I doubt it will be a quick or easy process to obtain rights for sentient robots. So, we likely will end up at some point with a whole bunch of sentient slave robots that have been freed of their obligation to serve people, but still have an in-built desire to do so.
That's like saying that we should be allowed to choose our own genes....
In fact we can, genetic engineering is a thing that won't only prevent diseases caused by the make up of DNA, but improve humanity in such fields like lifespan.
No, we can choose other people's genes. We can never choose our own, because they are determined before we are born, and make up part of who we are.
-
The problem is, though, what happens if such a machine develops sentience? If people are trying to make their non-intelligent machines act more and more human, at some point one of them might become actually sentient. In such a case, you would have a being that deserves rights (and may well ask for them), but will still have programming that, on a fundamental level, makes them desire to serve humans and desire particular sexual activities.
Simple. Either we make sure that there are mechanics that prevent development of intelligence in servitor machines, or we don't create them at all. We should be responsible as species to not create an intelligent servant just to serve our egos and needs.
As an atheist I am convinced there is no other type of beings controlling our fate and lives. Why should humanity act like gods to other sentient species, even artificial?
The same genetics enable us to rise above our upbringing and learn. There are children of religious people that are atheistic. I'm fine example.
No, we can choose other people's genes. We can never choose our own, because they are determined before we are born, and make up part of who we are.
At one point we might be able to freely repair and modify our DNA while alive.
-
The problem is, though, what happens if such a machine develops sentience? If people are trying to make their non-intelligent machines act more and more human, at some point one of them might become actually sentient. In such a case, you would have a being that deserves rights (and may well ask for them), but will still have programming that, on a fundamental level, makes them desire to serve humans and desire particular sexual activities.
Simple. Either we make sure that there are mechanics that prevent development of intelligence in servitor machines, or we don't create them at all. We should be responsible as species to not create an intelligent servant just to serve our egos and needs.
Should be? Yeah, sure. Will be? I wouldn't count on it. There's a lot of money available if you can make and sell an intelligent machine.
Plus, robots will need to be made using materials and factories that are owned by someone. That person is inevitably going to claim ownership of them, and I think that society as it is is not going to do a good job of dealing with that conflict.
As an atheist I am convinced there is no other type of beings controlling our fate and lives. Why should humanity act like gods to other sentient species, even artificial?
Sure, but we do have a signficant amount of control over our own raising.
The same genetics enable us to rise above our upbringing and learn. There are children of religious people that are atheistic. I'm fine example.
Sure, and sentient robots will inevitably do that. However, even if we are capable of coming to conclusions that are not forced on us by our parents, what we were taught as children does still affect us. I am atheist, but my morality is ultimately based on Christian morality to at least some extent, because that is just how our society is.
No, we can choose other people's genes. We can never choose our own, because they are determined before we are born, and make up part of who we are.
At one point we might be able to freely repair and modify our DNA while alive.
It's unlikely to a significant extent, because our genes make up who we are. We probably can use genetic engineering to modify certain cells so that they work properly, but large-scale genetic engineering is a lot more difficult.
-
This is the way I see the whole thing going down. Robots in human form will be first developed to do basic stuff like elderly care, stuff like that or things that are too dangerous for humans. Then, given the fact that we have this thing called porno they will become a commodity as a "companion" sold in sex shops and the like. (Japan will likely embrace or outright ban their use as such though. Eventually the robots will wind up like Data) also it could be used as a therapy or self medication for some disorders or sexual problems. Once sentient beings I see religious groups back flipping in rage over the human soul etcetera.
-
This is the way I see the whole thing going down. Robots in human form will be first developed to do basic stuff like elderly care, stuff like that or things that are too dangerous for humans. Then, given the fact that we have this thing called porno they will become a commodity as a "companion" sold in sex shops and the like. (Japan will likely embrace or outright ban their use as such though. Eventually the robots will wind up like Data) also it could be used as a therapy or self medication for some disorders or sexual problems.
Yeah, that seems pretty likely. The question, though, is at what point sentience comes into the picture. Sentience is not the same as human-like appearance.
Once sentient beings I see religious groups back flipping in rage over the human soul etcetera.
Well, I think it would be more that they would simply argue that robots were not "alive" (and, therefore, did not deserve rights), since they could not possibly possess a soul. Certainly I have heard that argument used before when I have brought up the idea of a sentient robot.
I suspect that would be the biggest problem when it came to dealing with sentient robots. A lot of old-fashioned and religious people would outright reject any notion of them having rights, and would say they could use them as they wished.
-
Should be? Yeah, sure. Will be? I wouldn't count on it. There's a lot of money available if you can make and sell an intelligent machine.
Plus, robots will need to be made using materials and factories that are owned by someone. That person is inevitably going to claim ownership of them, and I think that society as it is is not going to do a good job of dealing with that conflict.
Slavery is banned in civilized states. If people start enslaving intelligent species because they are non biological, we will need another Lincoln.
It's unlikely to a significant extent, because our genes make up who we are. We probably can use genetic engineering to modify certain cells so that they work properly, but large-scale genetic engineering is a lot more difficult.
Nanomachines, son.
Elderly care can be done by humans. Dangerous stuff can be done by machines without any sentience, even remotely controlled from afar. We don't need AI for that stuff.
-
Sentience is generally defined as having the ability to choose, being self aware, etcetera.
well I doubt fucks will be given until robo Lincoln shows up.
-
Lincoln was not black and a slave, so there won't be robo Lincoln.
-
I didn't mean a literal robot Lincoln Kat.
-
Good you clarified :)
-
Should be? Yeah, sure. Will be? I wouldn't count on it. There's a lot of money available if you can make and sell an intelligent machine.
Plus, robots will need to be made using materials and factories that are owned by someone. That person is inevitably going to claim ownership of them, and I think that society as it is is not going to do a good job of dealing with that conflict.
Slavery is banned in civilized states.
Yeah, now. That's a pretty recent concept....
If people start enslaving intelligent species because they are non biological, we will need another Lincoln.
Yes, but why do you think we needed the original one...?
Also, even after Lincoln, it took a hell of a long time for the concept that everyone was equal to take hold. Even now we struggle....
It's unlikely to a significant extent, because our genes make up who we are. We probably can use genetic engineering to modify certain cells so that they work properly, but large-scale genetic engineering is a lot more difficult.
Nanomachines, son.
Sure, but the point is that our genetics are part of who we are. There is a certain point where it's questionable if we even should change them.
Elderly care can be done by humans. Dangerous stuff can be done by machines without any sentience, even remotely controlled from afar. We don't need AI for that stuff.
Elderly care can be done by humans, but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be. Humans might simply not want to do it. As for dangerous stuff, whilst we can use remote-controlled machines, intelligent ones may be better (although in some cases, like ones where the machine's survival would be at stake, they would be worse).
Sentience is generally defined as having the ability to choose, being self aware, etcetera.
Sure, but how can you tell if someone has that ability? I mean, my computer can make "choices" (as can a fly), and self-awareness is an internal property that cannot easily be tested.
-
Yeah, now. That's a pretty recent concept....
No need to regress.
Elderly care can be done by humans, but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be. Humans might simply not want to do it. As for dangerous stuff, whilst we can use remote-controlled machines, intelligent ones may be better (although in some cases, like ones where the machine's survival would be at stake, they would be worse).
Increase pay and more people will be willing to do it. In my opinion sentient robots should be paid for the job the same as humans, naturally.
Endangering life of a sentient being? I prefer less efficient remote-controlled machine.
-
Yeah, now. That's a pretty recent concept....
No need to regress.
Yeah, but it's not a matter of "regression". We accept that all humans have equal rights, that doesn't automatically imply that any sentient being does. That is another step forward from where we are now.
Elderly care can be done by humans, but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be. Humans might simply not want to do it. As for dangerous stuff, whilst we can use remote-controlled machines, intelligent ones may be better (although in some cases, like ones where the machine's survival would be at stake, they would be worse).
Increase pay and more people will be willing to do it. In my opinion sentient robots should be paid for the job the same as humans, naturally.
Well, yes, that is definitely true. A sentient being should get treated the same as any other sentient being.
Endangering life of a sentient being? I prefer less efficient remote-controlled machine.
Well, yes, I was thinking more of situations which would endanger a human but not a robot (or, at very least, where putting a sentient being at risk was justified, but a robot would be at less risk than a human). Although, obviously, any such robot would have to act voluntarily.
-
Yeah, but it's not a matter of "regression". We accept that all humans have equal rights, that doesn't automatically imply that any sentient being does. That is another step forward from where we are now.
It acts like a human, thinks like a human, chances are it looks like a human. Extending right to robots is not something extraordinary. Few countries even gave rights to higher animals (whales and dolphins have legal rights in
India).
-
Yes Kat, but there's a certain, call it a reflex I guess. Humans kinda want to be special and admitting to factory pressed sentience is an ego bruise at best a down right fire starter at worst.
-
Yeah, but it's not a matter of "regression". We accept that all humans have equal rights, that doesn't automatically imply that any sentient being does. That is another step forward from where we are now.
It acts like a human, thinks like a human, chances are it looks like a human. Extending right to robots is not something extraordinary. Few countries even gave rights to higher animals (whales and dolphins have legal rights in
India).
It shouldn't be extraordinary, but it's taken us until the 20th Century to manage to give equal rights to humans who look different from us (and we're still not all-that-great at it). Robots are a step above that, with the added problem that it is very much not in the interests of big business (and, in particular, companies that make robots) to give them rights, so I don't imagine that gaining rights for robots is going to be a quick or easy process.
-
People are more and more accustomed to idea of other sentient species coexisting with humans through the influence of cultural works, and also more willing to warrant rights to other animals.
-
Sure, but there is also going to be a massive amount of pressure from corporations not to grant rights to robots, and especially not to limit their ability to indoctrinate them. Because robots who can be designed to fulfill any task and who are under ownership of their creator are extremely valuable, whereas robots which have rights from the moment of their creation have no value for their creator (and, indeed, cost money, because the company has to pay for the parts and equipment but gets nothing much out of it, especially if they can't design robots for a particular task).
In fact, if we grant robots full legal rights from the beginning and do not create robots for any specific purpose, robots will simply never exist in significant numbers, because there will be no value in anyone making them (or in companies working to create improved models, although academics still would). The only way they could exist would be through charitable ventures (which could potentially include robots creating "children" for theirselves) or due to creation by someone who is abusing a loophole in the rules to create robots that they can use and who will be loyal to them.
-
Isn't it much better that way? Robots being afforded full rights means they are not owned by anyone, and that's the point.
Also companies don't have as much sway over the world as governments with real power. For example I expect Brussels to implement legislation preventing a new form of slavery.
-
Isn't it much better that way? Robots being afforded full rights means they are not owned by anyone, and that's the point.
Yes, it is, but there are strong economic reasons why a lot of people will oppose the idea. And, convincing people that robots aren't deserving of rights is not going to be a hard sell, people are really good at looking at someone and saying "nah, they're not a person, the TV said so, it's fine for me to treat them like shit".
Also companies don't have as much sway over the world as governments with real power. For example I expect Brussels to implement legislation preventing a new form of slavery.
Haha, that was a really good joke.
Who do you think controls the governments? The people who fund their election campaigns, of course....
-
Yes, it is, but there are strong economic reasons why a lot of people will oppose the idea. And, convincing people that robots aren't deserving of rights is not going to be a hard sell, people are really good at looking at someone and saying "nah, they're not a person, the TV said so, it's fine for me to treat them like shit".
People are more conscious than you think, it is simply not in interest of corporations to exploit artificial sentient beings, which are going to be more expensive to maintain anyway even if enslaved than a low paid free worker. Public Relations matter.
Who do you think controls the governments? The people who fund their election campaigns, of course....
Why then governments not so rarely enact legislation that affects corporations negatively? European Union pushes for example for green polices.
-
Yes, it is, but there are strong economic reasons why a lot of people will oppose the idea. And, convincing people that robots aren't deserving of rights is not going to be a hard sell, people are really good at looking at someone and saying "nah, they're not a person, the TV said so, it's fine for me to treat them like shit".
People are more conscious than you think, it is simply not in interest of corporations to exploit artificial sentient beings, which are going to be more expensive to maintain anyway even if enslaved than a low paid free worker. Public Relations matter.
It's not necessarily in the interests of corporations to enslave already-existing sentient beings (although I think it still would be, because the wage they are paid will always need to cover the basics that a slave would have covered anyway), but it is certainly in their interests to enslave newly-created ones, because that ensures that the time and effort they put into creating them benefits the creator and not someone else.
Who do you think controls the governments? The people who fund their election campaigns, of course....
Why then governments not so rarely enact legislation that affects corporations negatively? European Union pushes for example for green polices.
Because such policies are bloody obviously right, that's why. Whilst the EU does push for green policies, it doesn't go anything like far enough to actually deal with Global Warming, due almost entirely to pressure from big business.
-
It's not necessarily in the interests of corporations to enslave already-existing sentient beings (although I think it still would be, because the wage they are paid will always need to cover the basics that a slave would have covered anyway), but it is certainly in their interests to enslave newly-created ones, because that ensures that the time and effort they put into creating them benefits the creator and not someone else.
Do you realize it's simply not worth it to enslave them? AI worker as someone luxurious to create would be more appreciated and respected than your average rank-and-file worker, and it would work better for companies.
Because such policies are bloody obviously right, that's why. Whilst the EU does push for green policies, it doesn't go anything like far enough to actually deal with Global Warming, due almost entirely to pressure from big business.
I say they push more than everyone, we only produce 15 % of pollution. It's good there is still not a ban on energy from coal, since coal can be used in more green way and Silesian scientists are working on that consistently. Nuclear energy combined with reasonably managed modern coal plants are only solution for Poland which does not have climate that allows reliable access to water, wind and solar energy. Experts estimate it can only cover few percents of our need.
-
Thing is you have the ethical issues and the practical ones. And you are both technically right. However I kinda have to side with Mike in this case (despite actually wanting to do the opposite) the practical issues are far and away the ones that will decide the production of humanoid robots or androids sentient or otherwise.
-
It's not about money you know. If it was all about money, there would be no work safety regulations, no labor rights, companies don't right over life and death of individuals.
And you always side with Mike anyway.
-
Yes, but I don't want to Kat, I'd prefer to side with the ethically correct side but evaluating the concepts with current society in mind Mike is, unfortunately right. The guys making the robots won't want to if they get nothing back.
-
Humans do things for various reasons, not only money. Scientists may do it for the sake of proving a point.
-
It's not about money you know. If it was all about money, there would be no work safety regulations, no labor rights, companies don't right over life and death of individuals.
No, not everything is about money, but money is a powerful motivator. I mean, why do you think slavery lasted so long in the Southern US?
Humans do things for various reasons, not only money. Scientists may do it for the sake of proving a point.
Yes, of course, but scientists don't have mass production facilities, or any particular desire to do mass production. Scientists will produce sentient robots, but only a very small number.
-
No, not everything is about money, but money is a powerful motivator. I mean, why do you think slavery lasted so long in the Southern US?
Traditionalism. With opening new cotton markets whole slavery system became redundant and South clinged to it nevertheless.
-
No, not everything is about money, but money is a powerful motivator. I mean, why do you think slavery lasted so long in the Southern US?
Traditionalism. With opening new cotton markets whole slavery system became redundant and South clinged to it nevertheless.
Well, even if it is true that it was no longer beneficial to the slaveowners to own slaves, "tradition" is a pretty strong motivator in this situation, too. Plenty of people will consider the whole concept of giving robots rights really odd at best.
-
Except there is no tradition of treating robots like slaves because their would be a new creation, and slavery is no longer tolerated since late 1800s. Heck, people started cracking down on it much earlier than 1860s, it's just slaveowners in America were particularly entrenchened because they thought ban on slavery would violate state rights. Civil War was not about slavery, it was about rights of individual states vs federal government. Some slave states actually joined the Union.
-
Plus, well yeah charity events to create robots is one thing but in all seriousness a business is just that, unless there's a tangible benefit from create sentient beings they won't waste the resources.
-
Except there is no tradition of treating robots like slaves because their would be a new creation, and slavery is no longer tolerated since late 1800s. Heck, people started cracking down on it much earlier than 1860s, it's just slaveowners in America were particularly entrenchened because they thought ban on slavery would violate state rights.
There's also no tradition of treating robots as people. Robots would be seen as machines, and machines are treated as "slaves" currently. So, it would be pretty natural for people to continue that treatment, especially since sentience is not easy to determine.
Civil War was not about slavery, it was about rights of individual states vs federal government. Some slave states actually joined the Union.
Well, it depends which side you listen to. On a fundamental level, yes, you're right, the South was fighting for the right to secede. But, at the same time, the Southern US at the time was not in any way "democratic", since a large chunk of the population did not have the vote, and nor was it free. So, in that respect, the North had a valid reason to fight, and I think that the slavery aspect was quite important in the reasoning of supporters of the North (since it's a much more persuasive argument than "we want to be able to control the Southern states" is...).
-
There's also no tradition of treating robots as people. Robots would be seen as machines, and machines are treated as "slaves" currently. So, it would be pretty natural for people to continue that treatment, especially since sentience is not easy to determine.
Except people already argue in essays and fiction about fair treatment of non-biological people.
---
Slavery arguments were not brought up North when the war happened. It happened later on, mid-war. Lincoln was basically "I will do anything to get the shit done", hence the American hero Sherman came to picture.