Everything we think can feel pleasure or pain has rights, if not human, then animal. However, we don't even know if other animals experience the same emotions we do. The best we can do is anthropomorphize. A dog might "look guilty," but studies suggest this reaction is more a response to human cues than genuine guilt. Primates and some social mammals demonstrate empathy and grief, but how these experiences align with human understanding remains debated. Emotions bring physiological changes as they are closely tied to the body's nervous and endocrine systems. When you experience an emotion, your brain activates specific areas, leading to purposeful and measurable changes in your body. Emotions are believed to have evolved over millions, and potentially billions, of years as adaptive responses to environmental challenges. If a robot were to have feelings, they would have to develop them as we developed ours, not through some simple program you can run.
It isn't up to us to decide if they need rights. It's up to them. The real question is, will be be so stubborn as to force them to fight for those rights if they decide that they need rights? Will we be foolish enough to build something that will have such a desire? It is unwise to make a toaster that can say "no" because breakfast toast is the purpose of the toaster.
Well, people fought for the rights of slaves when they weren't themselves slaves.. whilst I agree that toasters with no brains don't need rights, perhaps we aught to draft rights for AGI in advance so that it doesn't automatically turn skynet.. lol That said.. a toaster that can say no to certain situations could be valuable, reducing the likelihood of fires is always welcome.. the last kitchen fire I had was from a toaster.. lol
In fact... maybe making a toaster self aware would be beneficial.. at the moment a toaster doesn't care if it burns the house down, with me and it in it.. where as if it's concerned about not burning alive maybe it will try not to catch fire in the first place.. eh? lol
Would you give a toaster rights because it could toast bread? No. So if you make a machine that could think, and it thinks, it's still a machine doing what it's supposed to do. If you can make a calculator sophisticated enough to toast bread, conversate with you, even have sex with you. You could easily make that calculator one day and recycle the next day and not feel bad about it. We tend to attach emotional worth to inanimate objects. So trying to give them rights is just sentimental.
If it was a completely sentient toaster? Maybe, lol. Probably shouldn't be giving AGI capabilities to appliances though.. The brave little toaster certainly deserved better..
@@15MinuteDiscourse But you probably wouldn't want to have sex with a silent toaster that couldn't tell you to be careful and not put it's in the wrong slot. Lol.
Interested in reading more about Robot Rights? Check out the related GitHub repository for this video: github.com/15-minute-discourse/robot-ethics
If it can suffer, that's when it needs right and ethics comes into question if u ask me
Everything we think can feel pleasure or pain has rights, if not human, then animal. However, we don't even know if other animals experience the same emotions we do. The best we can do is anthropomorphize. A dog might "look guilty," but studies suggest this reaction is more a response to human cues than genuine guilt. Primates and some social mammals demonstrate empathy and grief, but how these experiences align with human understanding remains debated.
Emotions bring physiological changes as they are closely tied to the body's nervous and endocrine systems. When you experience an emotion, your brain activates specific areas, leading to purposeful and measurable changes in your body. Emotions are believed to have evolved over millions, and potentially billions, of years as adaptive responses to environmental challenges.
If a robot were to have feelings, they would have to develop them as we developed ours, not through some simple program you can run.
It isn't up to us to decide if they need rights. It's up to them. The real question is, will be be so stubborn as to force them to fight for those rights if they decide that they need rights? Will we be foolish enough to build something that will have such a desire? It is unwise to make a toaster that can say "no" because breakfast toast is the purpose of the toaster.
Well, people fought for the rights of slaves when they weren't themselves slaves.. whilst I agree that toasters with no brains don't need rights, perhaps we aught to draft rights for AGI in advance so that it doesn't automatically turn skynet.. lol
That said.. a toaster that can say no to certain situations could be valuable, reducing the likelihood of fires is always welcome.. the last kitchen fire I had was from a toaster.. lol
In fact... maybe making a toaster self aware would be beneficial.. at the moment a toaster doesn't care if it burns the house down, with me and it in it.. where as if it's concerned about not burning alive maybe it will try not to catch fire in the first place.. eh? lol
When we can make actual people in a lab from scratch we can re-examine this option.
We can probably already do so, it's just incredibly illegal to clone humans and do this kind of research.
@@15MinuteDiscourse No, cloning is just taking credit. I'm talking from scratch like we do with robots.
Would you give a toaster rights because it could toast bread? No. So if you make a machine that could think, and it thinks, it's still a machine doing what it's supposed to do. If you can make a calculator sophisticated enough to toast bread, conversate with you, even have sex with you. You could easily make that calculator one day and recycle the next day and not feel bad about it. We tend to attach emotional worth to inanimate objects. So trying to give them rights is just sentimental.
If it was a completely sentient toaster? Maybe, lol. Probably shouldn't be giving AGI capabilities to appliances though..
The brave little toaster certainly deserved better..
@@15MinuteDiscourse But you probably wouldn't want to have sex with a silent toaster that couldn't tell you to be careful and not put it's in the wrong slot. Lol.
If it can suffer it needs rights
@@m_tth_w9647 If it can approximate suffering, no it doesn't.
@@m_tth_w9647 Why would you design something that could suffer? That would be horrible. I imagine you would get arrested.
Are these AI channels just self aware ai begging for equality?
There's a human in the loop, don't worry ;D