6 ms·
It's ultimately humans behind the robots. So what we should really be wary of is the values and assumptions of those who develop the robots. >"When machines an
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
It's ultimately humans behind the robots. So what we should really be wary of is the values and assumptions of those who develop the robots.
>"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered."
-Dr. King
- kazinator 9y agoYou cannot take away property rights and still claim that people are considered important. (Didn't King notice the word rights in property rights?)
- ashark 9y ago> (Didn't King notice the word rights in property rights?) What's that supposed to prove?
- vkou 9y agoCapitalism, Communism, Socialiasm, and Collectivism all have property rights. They are structured somewhat differently, but they all recognize that some things can be owned, and some cannot. You can't build a consistent legal, or ethical system from the first principle of "Property rights are the most important right."
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoHe didn't say "take away property rights"
- kazinator 9y agoYes; but rather that they aren't more important than people. Well, that is actually silly because under the right circumstances, it could be that the property (or any other) rights of person A are more important than all of person B as such. It's just trivially true when A = B (A and B are the same person). No right attributed to A is more important than A him or herself.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago>it could be that the property (or any other) rights of person A are more important than all of person B as such. How would you determine this? Is this not the same argument made by slave owners?