Ethics of robot servitude article.

[dale coba]

If a sentient machine could be built it would add to the total sum of unhappiness and suffering.

And yet, couples sire and gestate children of their own, on purpose, though there are surplus kids,
if they really want to rear kids.

In fact, intergenerational depopulation is severe in Western/wealthy nations. If not for immigration, the U.S. population would not be rising.
Until non-sentient robots can do the work, we need couples to make more sentient, suffering humans. I never wanted to cause another sufferer to be born; but that issue turned out to be academic.

- Dale Coba

[King Snarf]

Well it's more like I was against the people who didn't believe machines could ever be sapient or have emotions

That's not exactly how this started. People were discussing whether or not the fembots in their fantasies have emotions or not, and you took offense at those who said they either like both (with an option to turn it off) or didn't like emotions at all.

[xodar]

If a sentient machine could be built it would add to the total sum of unhappiness and suffering.

And yet, couples sire and gestate children of their own, on purpose, though there are surplus kids,
if they really want to rear kids.

In fact, intergenerational depopulation is severe in Western/wealthy nations. If not for immigration, the U.S. population would not be rising.
Until non-sentient robots can do the work, we need couples to make more sentient, suffering humans. I never wanted to cause another sufferer to be born; but that issue turned out to be academic.

- Dale Coba

I don't want to add another set of suffering creatures that is entirely due to our own creation.
People evolved in nature and Western people need to proliferate a bit while the Third World needs prosperity. People in prosperous countries have fewer children and the world can thus see a population decline (growth is already slowing) without either war or the efforts of those who want to crush all but an incredibly rich dictatorial elite back into abject poverty. That's a prescription for war, disease, famine, ecological disaster.

King Snarf is right about this discussion wandering off topic. That shows how important a topic it is.

[King Snarf]

King Snarf is right about this discussion wandering off topic. That shows how important a topic it is.

Indeed. This has already spread across two threads already. Can't we just agree to disagree, and admit that some people like chocolate, some like vanilla, and some like mint ice cream?

[dale coba]

Can't we just agree to disagree, and admit that some people like chocolate, some like vanilla, and some like mint ice cream?

Ooh, ooh ! (hand raised, rapidly waving)

The correct answer is:
"No; we - Fembot Central, collectively, are not capable of what you just said."
Not for very long, at least.

- Dale Coba

[Asato]

But machines as genuine sapient beings is what I am interested in

Because...?
(my sensibility is geared too differently for me to dare any guesses)

- Dale Coba

Well I explained it in my introduction thread. I really just like those kinds of stories, especially when they involve emotional development and character growth.

That's not exactly how this started. People were discussing whether or not the fembots in their fantasies have emotions or not, and you took offense at those who said they either like both (with an option to turn it off) or didn't like emotions at all.

What I meant was the people who said a robot would have emotions but they could turn them off, if they have emotions then they can feel pain and suffering, so controlling them by deactivating their emotions at will seems wrong.

[The Egg]

What I meant was the people who said a robot would have emotions but they could turn them off, if they have emotions then they can feel pain and suffering, so controlling them by deactivating their emotions at will seems wrong.

Okay. I'm curious -- and I do mean that, just curious, not looking for another argument -- as to why emotions seem so important in this regard but other qualities of mind (reason for example) are apparently not. What is the magic bean, so to speak, that says a robot with emotions is unethical to control externally but a robot without is merely a device? I encounter plenty of artificial entities in, for example, video games, that exhibit loads of pseudo-emotional responses, including apparent pain stimulus reaction as I am shooting them to death. To date I have seen no one lobby for Resident Evil zombie rights.

[xodar]

.......I encounter plenty of artificial entities in, for example, video games, that exhibit loads of pseudo-emotional responses, including apparent pain stimulus reaction as I am shooting them to death. To date I have seen no one lobby for Resident Evil zombie rights.

Just wait a while.

[--NightBattery--]

.......I encounter plenty of artificial entities in, for example, video games, that exhibit loads of pseudo-emotional responses, including apparent pain stimulus reaction as I am shooting them to death. To date I have seen no one lobby for Resident Evil zombie rights.

Just wait a while.

Maybe two console generations from now. damn 3D

[Asato]

If you're just talking about the appearance of emotions or pre-programmed responses that imitate emotions, fine, but I was talking about genuine emotions

[gynoneko]

What I meant was the people who said a robot would have emotions but they could turn them off, if they have emotions then they can feel pain and suffering, so controlling them by deactivating their emotions at will seems wrong.

Personally, I would have it so you couldn't "turn it off at-will". They would have genuine responses, emotional output, intimate actual feelings. However, it would be possible through hacking or modding or whatnot to disable this. It wouldn't be easy, and it wouldn't be something they were programmed to do. But it would allow someone to interact with one without the emotions if they really wanted to.
It would be like jailbreaking your iPhone but harder

[dale coba]

If you're just talking about the appearance of emotions or pre-programmed responses that imitate emotions, fine, but I was talking about genuine emotions

I see better now. Mine would only imitate, so that led to my answer.
Good luck with yours being developed, and on her passing a Turing test yet to be written.

- Dale Coba
(Too easy Voight-Kampff tests would yield false negatives on my girls )

[Asato]

What I meant was the people who said a robot would have emotions but they could turn them off, if they have emotions then they can feel pain and suffering, so controlling them by deactivating their emotions at will seems wrong.

Personally, I would have it so you couldn't "turn it off at-will". They would have genuine responses, emotional output, intimate actual feelings. However, it would be possible through hacking or modding or whatnot to disable this. It wouldn't be easy, and it wouldn't be something they were programmed to do. But it would allow someone to interact with one without the emotions if they really wanted to.
It would be like jailbreaking your iPhone but harder

Yeah but that would still be an unethical thing to do if it was against her will

[gynoneko]

Yeah... But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be possible. What if she doesn't want to feel pain anymore, or she needs a major repair and they can't turn her off to do it but she'll feel pain from it and there are no drugs that would work on her? I'm not saying you should do it, that's why it would be hard. It is not something at she is meant to do, but it is still possible to do it. If I were to have sex with a woman against her will, it is unethical (among other things). But does that mean she shouldn't be allowed to have sex at all?
I agree though, you wouldn't want to violate her will at least when it comes to her own body because it is unethical. It would be mean to her. However, will robots really ever get to a point that this becomes a real moral issue? And if so, how long will it take the government to recognize their rights officially if at all?
I am working on a story, more of a novel, that involves some of these ideas among other things. It doesn't focus on robots, but it has plenty of them in it. The story focuses on a PI and a drug that can make you live forever. There are so many interesting ethical issues and repercussions that I wanted to make a book out of it. I'll let you all know when something comes from it.

[Asato]

I agree with your ideas about this

[xodar]

If they aren't sentient, only tools and imitations, there are no ethical problems.

Ethical problems are usually just high falutin' neurotic symptoms. Few of them are genuine, especially when nobody actually has any defined moral codes.

I see nothing wrong with resurrecting mammoths and other relatively recently extinct creatures whose DNA can be recovered but that really pisses off a lot of people. People who whine and moan about even presently living animals becoming extinct but would get mad about saving them via DNA. People with a life expectancy of 80+ who will never starve, are immune to most diseases, with plenty of media for fun and socializing, able to travel virtually anywhere, who oppose having children because they claim life is so miserable and unhappy and that they are suffering that it would be unfair to the kids.

I do see something wrong with sentient, conscious machines because they actually would add to the costs and burdens we bear and are totally unnecessary to our survival and improvement.

[The Egg]

I think the fundamental problem here is that some of us are equating "emotions" with "will" or "consciousness" and some of us are not. So the next question, I guess, should be: are these separate compartments in the human brain? If so, wouldn't they also be so for a robot? What would it be like to have a will but no emotions, or emotions but no will? Conversely, if they are inseparable, what does that say about our understanding of consciousness and emotion and the need for some to separate them?

[dale coba]

Editing the robot's experience would present an aesthetic problem;
like butchering an ancient bonsai tree.

Consciousness would be an awareness of the bot's own state.
Emotions would be a reflection on state, with respect to a self, and to the alternate outcomes that could have been, or might yet be.
Will is a desire to alter one's state in the world.

- Dale Coba

[Grendizer]

I think the fundamental problem here is that some of us are equating "emotions" with "will" or "consciousness" and some of us are not. So the next question, I guess, should be: are these separate compartments in the human brain? If so, wouldn't they also be so for a robot? What would it be like to have a will but no emotions, or emotions but no will? Conversely, if they are inseparable, what does that say about our understanding of consciousness and emotion and the need for some to separate them?

There is a consensus that, in humans at least, nearly every thought or desire is accompanied by an attendant emotion (or emotions) of varying strengths. This does not mean our tools need emulate this inextricable interweaving of different mental states. Our ability to model them as separate concepts implies that we will be able to build them into our machines in that way. Desires merely require a premise. For instance, the desire to hunt is premised on the need to avoid hunger. This desire is accompanied by emotions in humans (like fear of starvation), but it need not be that way. A machine can be programmed to maintain itself, and from that premise many actions (promulgated by what we could call desires following from the premise) will be taken. Stopping to adjust a servo doesn't imply that a robot will therefore be angered or annoyed by the necessary delay.

-----------------

My preference is for a fembot companion to behave and present itself in a fashion indistinguishable from a human. Both the emotional and sentient aspect would be simulations, rather than the genuine article -- and that is the point. I don't want to be able to hurt or enslave such a creature, so it is imperative that it not be capable of feeling pain or anything else (emotional or otherwise) in any genuine sense or deviating from its assigned premise (motivation). On admittedly shallow reflection, the only valid reason I can see for wanting a robot companion to possess genuine emotional awareness is so that you can attach yourself to a creature that cannot die, and therefore cannot leave you (at least not in the existential sense). But in reality, this sort of bond will likely happen even with the emotionless automatons I seek, since that is the very definition of "indistinguishable." If I couldn't form a bond with one because of its nature, then it wouldn't be indistinguishable from a human. These creatures will convince us at the emotional level that they feel, despite evidence to the contrary. Yet despite their act, we will be obviated from any ethical duty to them, just like a car.

[King Snarf]

Actually, that brings up a good point. Wouldn't it be crueler to give robots emotions, knowing full well that they'll outlive their human companions and have to find a way to deal with that?

[The Egg]

Actually, that brings up a good point. Wouldn't it be crueler to give robots emotions, knowing full well that they'll outlive their human companions and have to find a way to deal with that?

They might consider being able to shut them off a blessing!

[--NightBattery--]

in fiction they make the mistake first and then the interesting dialogs about ethic and morality, in reality the talk is done first and then the mistake.

[King Snarf]

Actually, that brings up a good point. Wouldn't it be crueler to give robots emotions, knowing full well that they'll outlive their human companions and have to find a way to deal with that?

They might consider being able to shut them off a blessing!

If a robot turned it's own emotions off, would Asato still call them evil? I just blew my own mind.

[xodar]

My preference is for a fembot companion to behave and present itself in a fashion indistinguishable from a human. Both the emotional and sentient aspect would be simulations, rather than the genuine article -- and that is the point. I don't want to be able to hurt or enslave such a creature, so it is imperative that it not be capable of feeling pain or anything else (emotional or otherwise) in any genuine sense or deviating from its assigned premise (motivation). On admittedly shallow reflection, the only valid reason I can see for wanting a robot companion to possess genuine emotional awareness is so that you can attach yourself to a creature that cannot die, and therefore cannot leave you (at least not in the existential sense). But in reality, this sort of bond will likely happen even with the emotionless automatons I seek, since that is the very definition of "indistinguishable." If I couldn't form a bond with one because of its nature, then it wouldn't be indistinguishable from a human. These creatures will convince us at the emotional level that they feel, despite evidence to the contrary. Yet despite their act, we will be obviated from any ethical duty to them, just like a car.

That's right.
People have attached themselves to stone idols, divining their supposed emotions and orders they give their followers. People write complicated psychological essays about literary characters such as Shakespeare's Hamlet or try to emulate them -- the Lone Ranger, Tarzan, etc. -- to such an extent that invented personifications like Uncle Sam can be used to motivate millions. Little girls attribute emotions and feelings and motives to their dolls.
The capacity to imitate actual human behavior isn't even necessary, just a stimulus like a name, a shape, a sequence of words on paper.
That's why it isn't necessary to make a fembot conscious or sentient. The better her program to imitate human behavior and adapt to her owner the better she is, but she need be no more alive than the computer I'm using or the radio I have turned on right now.
It's best she not be since that would, as I said, add more suffering and more "ethical" complications to the world.

[Asato]

No, not if they wanted to