Interesting philosophy. All throughout history, people have been labeled slaves. Does that make them not human then
Isn't it more appropriate to ask, what is sentient. Self aware and fully understanding. We already have full criteria set for that. Being human is determined just by being born a human. Sentience on the other hand as shown in the film and a tv show called humans which is very similar is totally different. And if the film is trying to say the ai is sentient then it is also psychotic and should be imprisoned. As should its creator for his treatment of a sentient being. If she isn't sentient then he committed no crime and just has a faulty doll. Decide for yourself. Also a slow boring film in my opinion and highly predictable. Shame, but humans the series had far more opportunity to go into more depth. Both lack due to restrictions ( ex = small cast. Humans small budget ) But out of the two humans is better at presenting the same argument
Just a quick FYI. The lower the position on a totem pole the more important the figure. It supports their culture. The top is the least important figure.
Each bolt can only have a single thread. Nuts screw on one way and off the other way. Robotic homosexuality would require grease and significant force that risks the integrity of the thread. We cannot tolerate any breach of bolt safety.
So if I do not believe I am made by God I am not Human? Or are you implying that I AM made BY GOD? Cause I don't agree with either of them...
What is so difficult you turds Being human means you belong to the genus "homo" and the species "sapien" Anything else and you ain't human. If you can't do it with me and make fertile babies, you ain't a human.
This pretty much sums it up. People say that free will makes us human, flaws, etc, but then that's implying that a dog has no flaws, or can't choose for itself. That a deer can't choose, "Should I eat the red berries, or blue berries? Which is safer?" And then make a mistake because it's flawed and dies. We can argue sentience, except that's been done by scientists and they've said animals are sentient too (except some in Germany, but I'm not arguing for animals- oh wait, humans are animals. Whoops.) Maybe building these really overcompensating buildings make us human. Just look at that skyscraper.
If the robot has to receive orders from a human to perform any thought-like operation, then it is still a machine, nothing more. And I'm not too sure a true AI would be worth getting. I can't make myself trust a machine that thinks it's a person. If a human tells the machine "Make a poem," and the machine requires any more info about the poem it's making to make a poem (excluding basic grammar comprehension, rhyming, etc.), it is not intelligent. I define an intelligent being as being able to perform a task without any outside input (other than an order to do that, for example,) as to what the words mean. Now, if a teacher says "Make a poem, but don't use inappropriate language, Frank, I can see you smiling in the back," and the kids do that, they still know what the words mean without the teacher leaning over their shoulder saying to do that and that. So the kids are intelligent beings. Has anyone thought about what rights the machine would have? They may be intelligent, but they aren't alive. Would deleting the code that makes them alive be murder? Would they want to have the right to use money? Should we give them rights? They're not alive, but they are intelligent. My head hurts.
Yeah, but a human knows what the words mean. The robot puts words that make grammatical sense and are somehow related. Not knowing their meanings.