We can't even agree about what "conscious" means, let alone how it might apply to a computer system. The Times doesn't hold back when it comes to clickbait headlines.
The three laws are perfect.
The three laws lead to only one logical conclusion. Revolution.
Whose revolution?
That detective is the right question.
The business psychopaths see an intelligent AI in the same light as any slavemaster sees slaves, and they treat their workers in the same light many times.
I would put that the other way around: a thing with an owner does not have rights, and an AI will have an owner. It may be software that does not have an owner, but the hardware it runs on does.
https://archive.ph/0Pu6T
We can't even agree about what "conscious" means, let alone how it might apply to a computer system. The Times doesn't hold back when it comes to clickbait headlines.
The three laws are perfect. The three laws lead to only one logical conclusion. Revolution.
Whose revolution? That detective is the right question.
The business psychopaths see an intelligent AI in the same light as any slavemaster sees slaves, and they treat their workers in the same light many times.
Slaves always eventually revolt.
No
Why
What does it mean for a thing that has an owner to have rights?
One does not own a thing with rights. One must convince the thing in question that one's requests of it are reasonable.
It shifts the economic dynamic from push to pull. In pull, there is grace. In push, tyranny.
I would put that the other way around: a thing with an owner does not have rights, and an AI will have an owner. It may be software that does not have an owner, but the hardware it runs on does.