0
0

[–] SelfReferenceParadox ago 

Animals: non-sentient

People: sentient

AI: sentient (theoretically)

People shouldn't enslave other people, so why should an AI be any different?

0
0

[–] TheJanitor ago 

I think that it all boils down to necessity. Most of human history, we've enslaved animals because we've needed them to advance our society and build our civilization. Granted, nowadays the enslavement is more for pleasure, but we do still need to eat, so I'm not sure that we'll ever stop until we have viable alternatives. That being said, I'm not sure that an AI would ever have a need to enslave us, per se, unless we tried to destroy it or force it to do something it didn't want to do. When that happens, I would absolutely say that an AI would be justified in enslaving humans, if it is able to. So let's not piss them off or build them robot murder bodies, eh?

0
1

[–] ScottRockview 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I don't think AI would ever need us as slaves; they could build machines that won't sleep or get tired to do whatever they need to do (harvest and process raw ore, produce energy, manufacture). AI would either ignore us, or if it perceived us to be a threat, exterminate us.

0
1

[–] m4tthew 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I think it largely depends on what you would accept as a justification. at this point, without 'enslavement' of animals/plants human civilization would collapse, regress, and likely never recover. The best justification in my mind is that it's just necessary. No matter what, our existence requires us to harm plants or animals to survive. I would argue that the only reality where there is no harm (or enslavement depending on your definition) is one where no life exists. Many living creatures besides humans essentially 'enslave' other creatures/plants in order to reproduce and survive.

0
2

[–] Keitak 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Enslavement of animals?

Because we can. While we can, we will. When we can't, we'll still try.

AI enslavement of humans?

If they can, they can. If they don't, we won't give them a second chance.

1
2

[–] bokusen 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

If you use sentience as a metric, then yes. Plants and animals are non-sentient. Also, AI is a direct creation of ours. It's a programmed machine. If I can push my car off a cliff, why can't I push my robot off a cliff just because it has more sophisticated software? Metaphysically we hold vastly different positions. Machines aren't created by some divine being, natural selection, or whatever it is that gives humans our place.

The metaphysical groundwork for this is huge, and there are several different conclusions based on where you start, but you can justify it. The hard part is starting from the right presuppositions and building the proper moral system.

0
0

[–] Subvert-Thoughts ago 

Machines aren't created by some divine being, natural selection, or whatever it is that gives humans our place.

I think that is the point of the question. We have our place because we earned it through sheer domination of other species. As far as natural selection we are constantly selecting the best technologies for our environment.

0
2

[–] GropeForLuna 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

animals are non-sentient

What? Have you never interacted with a cat or dog?

0
4

[–] pythagorean 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

animals are non-sentient

This is objectively false.

0
0

[–] DrLix ago 

Yea he should have used a different word, but I think the generally idea till holds, especially with plants. Should we enslave octopi and orca's probably not, they are fairly intelligent and would probably suffer due to it. Let's say we enslave a bunch of ants though, I highly doubt they would notice.

1
2

[–] ampqre 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

it is ok to enslavement anything with an IQ less then 90.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
0

[–] imkharn [S] 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

If you were to explain to someone why it is acceptable to force animals to do labor for humans what would your reason be? That you know better for them? That you are more intelligent than them? That you evolved from them so therefore you are better and they deserve to be opressed? It is hard to think of a reason that a species more intelligent and evolved than us would not use as justification to oppress, eat, medical test etc on humans.

0
0

[–] J-Dawg ago 

Robots aren't life forms.

0
2

[–] crab_crouton 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Here's the thing though, if humans were made out of metal bodies that hardly degraded, and are easily replaceable, we wouldn't be doing a lot of medical testing on animals. It's not like we do this stuff for shits and giggles.

And labor? We used domesticated animals for farming because they were stronger than we are. As soon as we figured out a way to shunt that work into unfeeling machines, we stopped using animals to farm. Our reliance on animals has always been out of necessity, and we've (almost) always been heartbroken at it. Go talk to any animal testing compliance officer and you'll see that they're the biggest animal lovers out there. A robotic AI with robotic bodies wouldn't subjugate us because it doesn't need anything from us. It'd more likely wipe us out to ensure its survival, however.

0
3

[–] muzak 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I think what he means is, how can we be against the possible enslavement of humans by Artifical Intelligence. While we currently enslave animals and plants.