haemi21

robots are not humans because they have no emotions. they can't feel anything

I have always pondered this question, and after seeing the movie I robot I started to think to myself, if we were playing another form of god. But to tell you the truth I'm still not sure.

 

Being a person means you have rights, and the government is obligated to defend those rights. But with the rise of artificial intelligence, we are facing new questions about what it takes to constitute a person. In the movie ‘I Robot’, was Sonny considered to be a person? When he committed the murder, there was a lot of questioning on whether he, as a machine should be charged or punished. Would it make sense to punish non living material like Sonny? I don’t really think so.

 

Sometime in the future computer programmers may be able to develop a robot that behaves just like a person, like Sonny. Sonny behaved just like a person but does that mean he is a person? If so, should they have given him the moral right of self-determination, and not have used him merely to serve mankind? What if it were possible for man to create a human-like machine or robot with the same capacity and abilities and we? A machine that could think on its own and make choices, without any human interference. A robot that could learn things when taught, rather then have the software downloaded or installed. By our knowledge, all a computer can do, is represent the knowledge acquired by the programmer. It can only do what a programmer tells it to do. In other words, it cannot learn, therefore it isn't intelligent. Perhaps in the future machines will develop their own independent level of intelligence with an advanced evolution in technology.

In my opinion, the characteristics of personhood, is to be human and to be living. To be living means to be complex, organized, and made of organic molecules. As living humans we acquire and process materials and energy. We are homeostasis (meaning: staying the same). We grow and response to environmental stimuli. We also reproduce using deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA). Robots, at least as far as I know, do meet a lot of these requirements. They are extremely complex and organized, they process energy, they stay the same, and they respond to their environment. But they are not made of organic molecules, they don't grow, and they don't reproduce using DNA. An organism has to meet all the above requirements to be alive. Sonny could not meet these requirements, therefore he is not alive. Therefore he fails the dictionary definition of a person as a living being.

If we made robots that were life like and able to die like people, they wouldn't be as useful. One of the reasons for making robots is to make helpers who are more durable than humans. But does a robot need to be alive to be a person? There are other definitions to consider before making an assumption. We don't give people rights because they are alive. If that were so, we would give trees and flowers rights. What is the fundamental difference between a flower and a person? A person can think and feel. He is aware of his existence and his experience. He is intelligent. In our experience so far things which are intelligent are always alive. Could it be possible to break this rule? Could a non-living thing, however well programmed, ever have the qualities of self-awareness, intelligence and consciousness?

 

While trying to classify robots into the different categories of whether they could be considered people or not only left me confused and with more questions then I started with. I do not believe that a machine like Sonny deserves the rights we associate with personhood. Just because it is materialistic does not mean it should be treated the same way as people are treated. The answer still remains unclear for me because I cannot be completely sure that my opinion is correct. After all, it is only an opinion. What do you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>