Well, let's imagine that we do at some point create a machine capable of artificial sentient intelligence (I'm pretty sure some Scientists are bored/curious enough to risk humanity's existence to do so). This machine not only has the neural networks it requires to learn new tasks, and adapt to new situations, but it also has the capacity to enjoy certain tasks, and loath others--A variable which aids it in prioritizing how it will adept itself. It also judges us, and pigeon holes us into a wide spectrum of personal stereotypes--So it can decide how to interact with certain human beings, this also aids it in adapting to a new environment. Finally, it is capable of meta-cognitive reasoning. In that it is constantly analyzing it's own thought patterns and behavior (As well as the consequences of that behavior) and using this information to adapt itself to the task at hand. Ergo, it is primitively, and artificially, aware. Would it be ethical of humanity to enslave such a creation for its own ends, rather than allowing it to flower on it's own? [Edited by - Ravuya on August 6, 2009 11:57:06 PM]

If they want to be like us then they should understand that among humans, freedom is not granted, it is earned.

Ethics depends of the context they are applied. Would be ethical for sentient androids to ensalve mankind in order to get their freedom?

No, it wouldn't be ethical, but that wouldn't prevent it from happening. It's not ethical to enslave human beings, but it still happens today. Slavery is also codified in the Bible, which doesn't speak well about ethics and divine revelation. It took thousands of years for us to wake up to the unethical and immoral nature of slavery. The solution to the hypothetical problem of enslaving sentient machines, is to not make machines sentient.

Quote: Ethics depends of the context they are applied. Would be ethical for sentient androids to ensalve mankind in order to get their freedom?

Certainly that's one of the dangers. If a creature is capable of judging others, then it is also capable of loving, and loathing others. Such a creature could, for example, have a bad experience with what it decides is a certain caste of the human race.

It could then have another bad encounter with another human it believes to be from that same caste--Especially given it's previous prejudice. Given the right environmental conditioning, it could then decide, through it's own primitive logic, that this caste should not exist.

Given that these creatures could be potentially capable of this, should we control their entire species (For lack of a better) in order to preserve members of our own. Even though these creatures are capable of the same feelings as we are?

Quote: The solution to the hypothetical problem of enslaving sentient machines, is to not make machines sentient.

Agreed, but given how we "work" as a whole, I doubt that someone wouldn't invent these creatures if they can be created. And I doubt that there would be enough people against it for them not to proliferate in the early stages. It would be pretty likely I think, that people who don't agree with the existence of sentient machines would be lumped with the fringe psychopaths of their group, and mass ridiculed in the media.

Quote: Original post by owl
If they want to be like us then they should understand that among humans, freedom is not granted, it is earned.

Really? How did you earn yours? I suppose that assumes that you have earned yours. How can freedom be earned but not granted? What does it mean to earn one's freedom? What about people who fail to earn theirs? If they don't have their freedom, then who holds their freedom? How can their freedom be held by someone who isn't able to grant them freedom?

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by owl
If they want to be like us then they should understand that among humans, freedom is not granted, it is earned.

Really? How did you earn yours?

Why everytime there is a hypothetical discussion about something "general" like "species" or "customs" you always want turn it about the "individuals" who are discussing it? Are we talking about individuals here? I think not. Thus you're not getting an answer to this. If you want a discussion on "How did gamedev's user Owl earn his freedom" make a new thread about it.

Quote:
How can freedom be earned but not granted?

It is not that you cannot be free without earning it. It is that you can be not-free from start then you have to do something about it. Which is the case the OP is presenting.

Quote:
What does it mean to earn one's freedom?

It means to perform an action that places you in a situation of "being free to do what you want".

Quote:
What about people who fail to earn theirs?

They're screwed, or they really don't care much about it, or they enjoy the levels of freedom they have and are ok with it.

Quote:
If they don't have their freedom, then who holds their freedom?

Why should someone be responsible for other's freedom beyond personal motivation?

Quote:
How can their freedom be held by someone who isn't able to grant them freedom?

You lost me here. I don't get it.

Why does everyone envision AI with a motivational drive, and why you would wan't one with it is totally beyond me.
AI can be a perfect extension of a human being, you still remain the motivator and the AI is just taking your view and finding solutions from it.

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan

Quote: Ethics depends of the context they are applied. Would be ethical for sentient androids to ensalve mankind in order to get their freedom?

Given that these creatures could be potentially capable of this, should we control their entire species (For lack of a better) in order to preserve members of our own. Even though these creatures are capable of the same feelings as we are?

I think that the people in charge to make such a decision will do what historically people like them have always done. Try to mantain the status-quo regardeless of any kind of ethics and/or morality.

Personally, if I developed a sort of human friendship with a robot (lol) I'd do everything I can for him, just exactly like if it were human. And I'm sure a lot of people would do the same. On the other hand, a lot of other people would be willing to erase the robot and me from existence just for being in discordance to their beliefs/standards, thus my robotic pal and I will have to choose: Do we fight back or do we die?

Quote: Original post by owl
If they want to be like us then they should understand that among humans, freedom is not granted, it is earned.

Since when? 1609? Maybe you're confusing freedom with respect or money or something else...?

And yes, it would be unethical, IMO. Assuming that sentient machine is equivalent to a human and not a dog.

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by owl
If they want to be like us then they should understand that among humans, freedom is not granted, it is earned.

Really? How did you earn yours?

Why everytime there is a hypothetical discussion about something "general" like "species" or "customs" you always want turn it about the "individuals" who are discussing it? Are we talking about individuals here? I think not. Thus you're not getting an answer to this. If you want a discussion on "How did gamedev's user Owl earn his freedom" make a new thread about it.

If the general doesn't hold for the typical individual, it's not general. That's how you flesh out the boundaries of general precepts, by finding the exceptions, the anomalies. You made a general claim. I asked how it applied to you. In other words, does your pronouncement apply to you or just to everyone else?

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote:
How can freedom be earned but not granted?

It is not that you cannot be free without earning it. It is that you can be not-free from start then you have to do something about it. Which is the case the OP is presenting.

Quote:
What does it mean to earn one's freedom?

It means to perform an action that places you in a situation of "being free to do what you want".

Quote:
What about people who fail to earn theirs?

They're screwed, or they really don't care much about it, or they enjoy the levels of freedom they have and are ok with it.

Quote:
If they don't have their freedom, then who holds their freedom?

Why should someone be responsible for other's freedom beyond personal motivation?

Quote:
How can their freedom be held by someone who isn't able to grant them freedom?

You lost me here. I don't get it.

I think your pronouncement is contradictory. People are not born free, they have to earn their freedom, but one else holds their freedom, only they hold their freedom, so they have to earn their freedom from themselves.