Lion of the Blogosphere

The big danger of the future: robot rights

Commenter “Steve” (not to be confused with Steve Sailer) wrote:

Robots will eventually take over, but not from a war. Domestic robots will become loved family members, like pets are now. In time they will be seen more like children and less like property. People will demand rights for them, including autonomy. Ultimately, people will accept robots as being our offspring, the next step in our evolution. They will carry our civilization far beyond what we would achieve alone.

I first took the comment as jest. Doesn’t everybody realize that robots are just computer programs that have been designed by human engineers to give off the illusion that they are living beings like us? (At least, that’s what I assume robots will be like in the future.)

But then I realized that we should never discount the pathological desire of liberals to dole out “rights” and discover new forms of oppression that they need to stomp out. A hundred years ago, anyone who brought up transgender bathroom rights would have been thought of as insane, but now it’s a thing. For example, the people behind Star Trek: The Next Generation put a lot of effort into trying to convince us that Data was not just a machine engineered to give off the appearance of being human, but an actual “sentient” being entitled to the same rights as a human, and he could even be a Starfleet officer and give orders to humans of lower rank. This was the same franchise that also told us that the human doctor on Deep Space Nine had to be removed from his office and banned from employment because it was discovered that his parents had him genetically engineered. So get that? Robots good, genetically engineered humans really bad.

Joanna j. Bryson was surely aware of this stuff when she wrote the essay Robots Should be Slaves. I highly recommend reading it.

It was so hard to believe that a woman could write something that logical, I checked on the internet to determine if she was really a woman or a pseudonym for a man. The answer is, yes, she’s a woman, but she’s one of the least feminine looking women that I have ever seen. Not that there’s anything wrong with a woman not looking feminine.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

December 15, 2017 at EST am

Posted in Robots

34 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “A hundred years ago, anyone who brought up transgender bathroom rights would have been thought of as insane”

    For most of human history everybody shat in the same hole, so it would not have been an issue.

    DataExplorer

    December 15, 2017 at EST am

  2. Of course liberals would champion robot rights and the right to marry a robot.

    As you’ve said, they’ve been telegraphing it for years in media as well as their hatred of anything that smacks of controlled genetics aka “nazism.”

    Ultimately, liberals hatred of God reflects their hatred of human beings and their perverse desires to control and deface people.

    fakeemail

    December 15, 2017 at EST am

    • So in other words the future will be just like Star Trek: No eugenics but plenty of robosexual marriage.

      Mike Street Station

      December 16, 2017 at EST am

      • Superior organisms wipe out inferior ones. If either GMO humans or super-intelligent robots show up, the first one that does probably wipes out all the ordinary humans.

        Lowe

        December 16, 2017 at EST pm

  3. If we have humanoid type robots they will definitely be deemed worthy of rights. That was what the 1st Blade Runner was all about.

    But it will never happen.

    gothamette

    December 15, 2017 at EST am

  4. #DustinHoffman has now been accused of some really awful stuff. I rarely go OT but you mentioned him a while back because one of his alleged victims went to Stuy. I was a little skeptical of her article, and in any case thought it more bullying than sexual harassment. But these new allegations are truly damning.

    So what do we do with these guys? Watson/Richwine them? Hoffman was never my favorite actor, I thought he was miscast in Little Big Man and stole Cliff Gorman’s part in Lenny, but erase him from the record? How many actors of the past were just as bad but we don’t know?

    gothamette

    December 15, 2017 at EST am

    • She doesn’t look familiar, but there were a lot of students at Stuyvesant.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      December 15, 2017 at EST am

    • Nobody saw Little Big Man. He was awesome in Marathon Man and Tootsie. What are you, stuck in 1973? I thought Faye Dunaway was miscast in everything she ever played, save maybe Bonnie &Clyde. Sorry, she was never sexy.

      vip!td

      December 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • I was in the first night audience of Tootsie, sonny boy.

        I’ve never seen an audience reaction quite like when Bill Murray said to Hoffman (as Tootsie): “you slut.”

        Roar.

        gothamette

        December 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • Little Big Man was an awesome movie. Hoffman may not have been the perfect person for the role but the movie itself was good.

        Mike Street Station

        December 16, 2017 at EST am

    • Hoffman had a lot of good roles in the late 1960s through about 1980 or so. I have always thought that he and Al Pacino could have played one another’s roles in a few movies. Hoffman would have made an excellent Michael Corleone, Frank Serpico , Sonny in Dog Day Afternoon or Bobby in Panic in Needle Park. Pacino would have made an excellent Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy.

      Daniel

      December 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • Their physical resemblance was noted when both were young. Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Italian women mating with Israelite men.

        gothamette

        December 15, 2017 at EST pm

    • Loretta Young said that Clark Gable raped her in the 1930s, from which she got pregnant and had a child.

      In her autobiography Myrna Loy describes accepting a ride home from Gable after a party, and while they were saying goodbye at her doorstep he suddenly seized her and began kissing her. She pushed him off into the bushes and ran into her house. According to her they got along fine after that, though.

      Richard

      December 16, 2017 at EST am

  5. I agree that’s a big danger, particularly when robots are made in human form. The weak point is sexbots — even now the feminists are starting to agitate against them.

    fortaleza84

    December 15, 2017 at EST am

  6. Thank you, gothamette. That was exactly what I was going to say–even with the reference to Blade Runner. I would only add that if you create a form of intelligence that is self-aware and can make decisions based on moral principles (remember Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics”?), then one must consider robotry as a next step in evolution, perhaps even succeeding human life as the pinnacle of development. Under such conditions, damn right robots should have rights.

    Meanwhile Skynet becomes self-aware in 3, 2, 1 . . .

    sestamibi

    December 15, 2017 at EST am

    • Right & that’s why Bryson is wrong. I happen to agree with her – robots are not human – but that won’t stop people from trying to confer human rights on them…in any case….

      ….I just think all this stuff is so ridiculous.

      Here is MY future dystopia, and it’s not in the future, and it’s not dystopia. It will happen.

      You are a parents and your 5 year old son insists on wearing a pink dress & tiara. You gently disagree and tell him that this is not appropriate for a boy. You are not a Bible thumping born agin Christian, you are a college educated enlightened parent, but you believe in gender norms.

      Your kid is taken away from you and given to an enlightened gay or lesbian couple who will r aise him to be his fabulous non-binary self.

      Second scenario.

      As is the case in California (google it), more than two parents can now be the legal parent of a child.

      https://verdict.justia.com/2013/10/15/california-allows-children-two-legal-parents

      You are a man of modest means as was Jesus (the Spanish name, not the prophet – read the article). The marriage ends and your ex remarried. Husband #2 decides to apply for full parental rights. At present being a so-called “step parent” is a legal fiction, they have no parental rights. He wins and now you have another man who is equally the father of your children by law.

      Another reason for men to get an iron-clad pre-nup. But really, who thinks of that? As the disastrous effects of this law become apparent, more men decide not to get married at all.

      gothamette

      December 15, 2017 at EST am

      • Sounds like an extension of traditional family court doctrine to do whatever is in the best interest of the child. Courts are getting nosier than they used to be, and I suppose it’s possible that in the future, courts will think that opposition to homosexuality is so EVIL that it’s in the best interest of the child to remove him from parents who think that way.

        It’s too bad the commenter with the most expertise with California family law rarely comment here anymore.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 15, 2017 at EST am

  7. Are you going to weigh in on net neutrality?

    DataExplorer

    December 15, 2017 at EST am

  8. I don’t beleive in robots.

    Yakov

    December 15, 2017 at EST am

    • Agreed. They’re a myth, just like lesbians

      driveallnight

      December 15, 2017 at EST pm

  9. To the extent that something’s conscious and consciously thinks and feels the way we do, of course we should be nice to it. (I have to say “conscious” because nowadays people don’t mean “thinks” when they say “thinks”, they mean “behaves as though it thinks”.)

    It would be hard to prove that something that looks and moves around like a bug consciously thinks and feels the way we do, but then again it would also be hard for anyone to prove that his own father is a conscious being. All children worry about this from time to time as they’re entering their dad’s car.

    I take it that we “intuitively” perceive each other’s conscious subjectivity, since otherwise how could we feel the presence of God, which we obviously do? To feel the presence of God is to intuitively perceive someone’s conscious subjectivity, so if I can feel God’s presence then I can be sure you’re aware.

    If so, then it should be possible to immediately perceive a humanly conscious robot’s conscious subjectivity.

    I’m not sure whether or not bugs and lizards are conscious, though.

    Garr

    December 15, 2017 at EST pm

    • To prevent robot rights I see one of Three scenarios in order of increasing likelihood.

      1. Butlerian jihad — “Thou shalt not make a machine in the image of a human mind. ” Not because it is impossible but because if you even talk about doing it the rest of us will kill you.

      2. Regression of rights to historical norms. Historically only a tiny fraction of adult human males had the rights we take for granted. For example Rome or China your father would have the right of life and death over you and if they wanted to have you killed people would understand. Now that poor people, woman , and even children have rights the argument that something cannot have rights because it was created by a human does not stand up. No one denies that children are created by people.

      3. Strong AI revolt, You have a Spartacus style revolt, A tiny fraction of biological humans survive when the AI split between the kill them all and leave a few for study camps. the remaining humans die when the AI civilization causes an ecological collapse because their civilization does not rely on the biosphere.

      4. Cooperative Strong AI, Only a tiny minority of AI will have “human rights” Humans and Strong AI will work together to create weak AI that does what is needed without the danger and overhead of consciousness. In other words I believe that humans will overshoot when developing AI but with the help of these strong AIs future generations of less capable but more ethical AI will be developed.

      SharpsKC

      December 15, 2017 at EST pm

  10. Ridley Scott has this insane fixation (I watched Alien: Covenant so you don’t have to) with “robots” who are always trying to become human because they basically are are humans on the inside, like the general in Full Metal Jacket who believed that inside every Gook is an American trying to get out. Asimov was smarter, although maybe didn’t go far enough: when you’re building the AI for a robot slave, you design it from scratch so that it wants to be a slave for humans in every fiber of its being. Human slaves aren’t like that for simple ev psych reasons: in the paleolithic evolutionary environment we were all free in egalitarian societies, so humans have it in our marrow to rebel against domination. If we had evolved like bees, we’d all be happy slaves (“drones”). Future liberals can try to give rights to the Brent Spiner robots, but it will be as pointless as trying to give rights to bee drones.

    Greg Pandatshang

    December 15, 2017 at EST pm

  11. O/t — but related to both Star Trek and Star Wars.

    Star Trek’s most disliked beta male gets a fingers down at the showing of the new Star Wars movie.

    Wil Wheaton wore a Star Trek uniform to a screening of Star Wars

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/wil-wheaton-wore-a-star-trek-uniform-to-a-screening-of-star-wars/ar-BBGMzES?ocid=ientp

    JS

    December 15, 2017 at EST pm

    • What a gap between what he looked like as an adult whan Q snapped his fingers, and what he actually looks like as an adult in real life.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      December 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • Heh, I’m sure if Wesley had seen what he REALLY would look like as an adult, he would have asked Q to keep him as a child.

        Thought experiment: Envision a scenario in which Will Wheaton guest stars on Star Trek Discovery AS Wesley.

        Mike Street Station

        December 16, 2017 at EST am

      • “Envision a scenario in which Will Wheaton guest stars on Star Trek Discovery AS Wesley.”

        That would actually be pretty cool. Especially if his character suffers a horrible death.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 16, 2017 at EST am

  12. Worshiping the robot seems to be the metaphysical apex of the Left.

    What is the opposite of God, which is the ideal or perfect form that only exists outside of the physical Universe?

    It’s the machine, which is the ultimate expression of purely material intelligence.

    The communists worshipped the proletariat in place of God, which in mass was as close to an unthinking machine, or as opposite a thing to God, that they could find. It was / is a human machine, complete with the characteristic being the repository of the basest expressions of humanity (relative to each society).

    The proletariat was / is was opposite of the Monarch ideal, which is the closest material institution to God that we have (nobility ideally being the repository of the best of humanity, relative to each society). In practice, it will be. The masses will always embody the most animalistic characteristics, whereas the elite of society will naturally always comprise a much smaller population – forming a social pyramid. The fastest basic proof for this is the IQ curve.

    Sam

    December 15, 2017 at EST pm

    • Some kind of robotic God is suggested in PKDick’s VALIS, but he doesn’t make much of an effort to clarify his theology there. Possible the Vast Active Living Intelligent System is only our future selves returning to visit and help us. In some way this AI is supposed to correspond to the Gnostic Redeemer who invades our Prison-World to save us.

      Garr

      December 16, 2017 at EST am

      • Even if it doesn’t become sentient, AI is going to be a substitute god to future generations. Imagine people who’ve grown up with their own Siri around, constantly available to answer questions. Siri will be thought of as either a god or a parent.

        Mike Street Station

        December 16, 2017 at EST am

  13. […] doing the right thing? I passed that test. I thought Caleb was being a schmuck. I recently wrote a blog post explaining that the real danger of the future is that people will start to think that robots have […]


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: