Report Blog Entry
of doing that, they’re the same as us in every way—other than being mechanical. From my experience with how people view this concept, most would have no issue using them as labor, without giving thought to whether they might actually be sentient. Is this realistically any different from slavery? I wouldn't say it is.
Of course, this is a theoretical concern. But the fact is that, for humanity, any life—artificial, natural, or even spiritual (for religious people)—is and likely will be considered worth less than our own lives to society in general. Our “us and them” mentality is what will prohibit our evolution, whether it’s against other humans or against whatever other life there may be.
Life is valuable, no matter the source.
Since there’s no right or wrong here, please share what you think! :)
Comments
Displaying 1 of 1 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
abbwcqdorw 🫶
i personally think artificial intelligence helpers can be programmed into understanding the patterns of our emotions without concretely feeling them. but i get it isn’t your main concern. in my opinion labour, as a way of giving something to the community in order to receive wellbeing back (and not just surviving as it is nowadays), is a necessary element for self realization. so i really don’t know but if we will last enough to have this kind of technology we’ll keep working anyway (given that to last this long we should probably 100% switch to socialism). tho what i mean with all this talk is that ai don’t have to have emotions or organic needs to contemplate them as part of its knowledge. therefore for this reason using its labour without giving nothing back won’t be unethical till basically it’s still the byproduct of human labour, technically already rewarded in the hypothetical etopia.