Do Robots have rights?

>Do Robots have rights?
I never got this trope. It's a machine. It doesn't have any rights anymore than my washing machine or computer.

Yeah we can make them suck our dicks

>says that while posting a Star Wars droid
>the slave machines to slave races

Because your washing machine isn't questioning its own existence as a sapient being.
No shit the burgerbot 4k is just another piece of property but assuming a setting where AI can become self-aware beyond their programming it becomes an issue of slavery.

This. It's only if you KNOW the AI is sentient, but you treat it like a slave, THEN it becomes an issue about slavery. Otherwise, it's morevin line with with Dr Frankenstein.

Op's Pic scares me for some reason.

there's something about it that doesn't sit right with me.

He said "date me" so hes a sad loser who wants a gf capable of human thought not just a sex doll.

No

Attached: 1585771881047.png (127x128, 13.97K)

And what rights do you have?

One, that's wrong, because machines don't have souls.
Two, that's stupid, not only would it be an absurd idea to give a sexbot any more than an imitation of conciousness it would be extremely unnecessary and costly especially when you could go with the imitation or simulation instead...
three, you could create an actually conscious robot that just likes be enslaved, therefore there's no rights issue
four, if you can create self-aware ai that can be contained in a volume as small as a human then we're essentially already talking about a post-singularity society where superintelligences exist, so what's even the fucking point, we wouldn't even know how such a society would function

>implying they would ever give a consumer product human thought especially when it's probably just cheaper to give it the unthinking illusion of human thought

An AI cannot feel anything beyond it's own programming. which is to say that it feels in the same way a toaster can feel if that toaster was programmed to give you the feedback that mimics human life.

While question existence is part of the mimicking human emotions. It still doesn't mean that any of those emotions aren't programmable or controllable.

The same cannot be said for human beings.

Therefore, Robots cannot have rights because they never had sentience to begin with. Sentience cannot be proven within the bounds of programming.

Attached: 836db4b6bd69e8d78fc77157df9e1e10.jpg (236x377, 22.65K)

Humans don't have souls.
That's just some fantasy that the ancients came up with.

>tfw in "robots are real human bean" stories companies give robots conscience for no reason or when conscience is glitched into existence.

Attached: im tired.png (519x533, 277.32K)

MUH ROBOT RIGHTS
is (white) men gripping with the reality that other races have sentience

I've always wonderes why otakus are portrayed with big lips.

no. and don't get attached.

Attached: 79e580df1215d473b616e72a787d9378.jpg (500x672, 50.81K)

THIS

creating sentience is an oxymoron. This is why I hate west world. You really can't create something that sentient. You can only build something that mimics sentience

Are humans not robots of flesh and blood how are our neurons any different from their wires?

>t.jew

>Do robots have rights?
Do you?

It's a tricky question, not because of any needlessly convoluted philosophy but needlessly convoluted law.

If the law doesn't recognize something as being a someone it technically has no rights on several levels.

Even if her activities put money into the idiot's account it may not count as an exchange for something in turn if she doesn't have the rights to be recognized as someone able to own property. It may just be said in court that she was simply earning him money, not paying him back.
There has to be a clear contract established to recognize her as capable of doing that, without it it's just undisclosed donations, even if the donors themselves insist they're donating for her freedom if there's no such law no amount they put in will allow it. They can probably refund but that's not going to matter as far as her case.

So outsmarting prejudice is a nice idea, but in practice it's rarely how things work.
Take the case of Joan of Arc, it's noted she handled herself well in court and ducked and dodged accusations longer than most, but in the end since the law just said "yeah, we find you guilty and we're burning you anyway" that's the ruling and that's the result.

Maybe if he doesn't reset or scrap her, which is likely in his or her developer's right, and the case goes on long enough and pressure from outside changes things she can have an out, but therein lies the point. Don't expect the law or business or any such system to always be fair or on your side by default.

Also, her having rights doesn't allow her to loiter. That wager is in his right to ask her be removed from the establishment if she's just taking up space same as many homeless people I've seen try to just live inside a 24/7 fast food joint.

Jews believe in souls don't they?
I've never had any jewish friends.

Get

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of having robots?