4 ms·

Why would anyone think empathy for a machine was right, moral, or even expected? Empathy for living things is what's natural; empathy for a robot is dependent o

Why would anyone think empathy for a machine was right, moral, or even expected? Empathy for living things is what's natural; empathy for a robot is dependent only on its accidental or intentional resemblance to a living thing. It seems like either the writer of this article or the authors of the study drew some funny conclusions.

salawat 8y ago
Why? What makes the living being" deserving of empathy, and the machine not? Why should "living beingness" be restricted to our genetic footprint? Is an animal any less deserving of being treated well when it is raised for food? Do children that aren't descended from someone deserve to be treated more harshly than one's own? As complexity goes up, and things develop to become more humanlike, at the end of the day, we'll need to be willing to extend some semblance of care toward them. Do you think it's perfectly okay and reasonable for marketing to predate on primal heuristics in order to manipulate you into doing something you'd not normally do? What else is another human being other than a bag of squishy parts that happens to take action or make sounds in response to stimuli in similar ways that I do? I think I know where your attitude comes from, but the ability to map input to output doesn't magically make something not worthy of empathizing with. The exact opposite is often preferable to a degree as it helps inure one to rampant dehumanization of those around them. I'm not saying to take your hammer out to dinner, but an emotional connection to an inanimate thing that works as it should is not unhealthy. And when you start talking about children, them showing concern for anything but themselves is a good thing.
- lobotryas 8y ago
  Organic tissue and the ability to feel pain, for one. Why should anyone feel compassion for a bucket of nuts and bolts?
  - smhost 8y ago
    Because it's apparently imbued with our values. It speaks our language (even said "please"), kinda looks like us if you squint, exists in our space symbiotically, there's care and attention in the way it was designed. Maybe compassion isn't necessary, but I think a basic respect is appropriate.
  - DonHopkins 8y ago
    People sure love their cars!
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Ability to feel pain - yes. But organic tissue? Really? Organic tissue is just an extremely complex molecular machine, not magic.
- rdiddly 8y ago
  Questioning an idea doesn't automatically amount to advocating its "opposite" (in quotes because that would in turn reflect a further underlying supposition that the issue being discussed is binary in the first place, where it usually isn't). I'm not suggesting everybody take their beliefs about robots and replace them with some other opposite belief. I'm saying the appropriate belief might be none at all. What do robots deserve? I dunno, who cares, what's for dinner? They don't make meaningful decisions, aren't beings, and therefore aren't morally accountable. Ironically that ends up being a pretty good argument that we should just smash them all, because they're amoral, some of them dangerously so, but mostly it just means they're just things, and don't "deserve" anything. They aren't governed by morality internally so why should we apply it externally?
  - salawat 8y ago
    >Questioning an idea doesn't automatically amount to advocating its "opposite" (in quotes because that would in turn reflect a further underlying supposition that the issue being discussed is binary in the first place, where it usually isn't).I'm not suggesting everybody take their beliefs about robots and replace them with some other opposite belief. I'm saying the appropriate belief might be none at all. Fair. Maybe just say that next time. Cuts out a couple of levels of implications that others may not follow. >What do robots deserve? I dunno, who cares, what's for dinner? They don't make meaningful decisions, aren't beings, and therefore aren't morally accountable. Ironically that ends up being a pretty good argument that we should just smash them all, because they're amoral, some of them dangerously so, but mostly it just means they're just things, and don't "deserve" anything. Either they are amoral or they aren't. It's a binary state. Modifying it by tacking on "dangerously" is just trying to score emotional points. (The irony.) Furthermore, we're increasingly seeing VERY significant decisions being made by digital entities, be they algorithms or robots. What news you see, the order of search results, what route you travel on the way home are ALL meaningful decisions. >They aren't governed by morality internally so why should we apply it externally? Because they are a by-product of our actions as moral beings. They are an extension of us in the world in that they would not exist if we had not found a need for them to exist. They also do at some level have a fundamental morality. Do they complete their task in the manner in which they were designed? If they do, they are good, if they don't, or do in an unintended way they are bad. The fact of the matter is that the childrens' behavior should elicit disgust or the recognition that the state of affairs was not right. Having to program a robot to run to an adult to avoid being "bullied" makes a sad statement about the lack of respect we find it reasonable to instill in our children for artifical systems put in place. There is also the message being sent, as pointed out by another poster, that the system is interacting according to our more positive moral values. If it can't even do that without anti-bullying programming, there is an issue, and it isn't with the machine. The story of Frankenstein's monster isn't just horrible because of the monster's eventual actions but also because the monster's creator, as well as the populace could not see in that "fleshy bucket of bolts" something that deserved some level of respect by virtue of its creation. I don't hold that flesh or pain is necessary to make an object worthy of respect. Only a purpose. Whether or not that purpose justifies acting maliciously towards it is entirely dependent on how it is being employed, and what the consequences and outcomes of its deployment are. I'll not go on further except to say I vehemently disagree with your viewpoint, and implore you to think some more on the matter.
joshmarlow 8y ago
Somewhat philosophical considerations of tbe moral standing of robot aside, there are a few pretty pragmatic reasons to study this. 1) if we build robots that elicit human empathy, then it could help avoid property damage to the robot - which is more about protecting the rights of the robot owner. 2) better understanding of how/why children are abusive to entities that they consider capable of suffering could give some hints about how to raise children to not be cruel to other people/animals. This could have impact ranging from reducing bullying to how we deal with crime to society'a willingness to go to war.

salawat 8y ago

Why? What makes the living being" deserving of empathy, and the machine not? Why should "living beingness" be restricted to our genetic footprint? Is an animal any less deserving of being treated well when it is raised for food? Do children that aren't descended from someone deserve to be treated more harshly than one's own? As complexity goes up, and things develop to become more humanlike, at the end of the day, we'll need to be willing to extend some semblance of care toward them. Do you think it's perfectly okay and reasonable for marketing to predate on primal heuristics in order to manipulate you into doing something you'd not normally do? What else is another human being other than a bag of squishy parts that happens to take action or make sounds in response to stimuli in similar ways that I do? I think I know where your attitude comes from, but the ability to map input to output doesn't magically make something not worthy of empathizing with. The exact opposite is often preferable to a degree as it helps inure one to rampant dehumanization of those around them. I'm not saying to take your hammer out to dinner, but an emotional connection to an inanimate thing that works as it should is not unhealthy. And when you start talking about children, them showing concern for anything but themselves is a good thing.

lobotryas 8y ago
Organic tissue and the ability to feel pain, for one. Why should anyone feel compassion for a bucket of nuts and bolts?
- smhost 8y ago
  Because it's apparently imbued with our values. It speaks our language (even said "please"), kinda looks like us if you squint, exists in our space symbiotically, there's care and attention in the way it was designed. Maybe compassion isn't necessary, but I think a basic respect is appropriate.
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  People sure love their cars!
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Ability to feel pain - yes. But organic tissue? Really? Organic tissue is just an extremely complex molecular machine, not magic.
rdiddly 8y ago
Questioning an idea doesn't automatically amount to advocating its "opposite" (in quotes because that would in turn reflect a further underlying supposition that the issue being discussed is binary in the first place, where it usually isn't). I'm not suggesting everybody take their beliefs about robots and replace them with some other opposite belief. I'm saying the appropriate belief might be none at all. What do robots deserve? I dunno, who cares, what's for dinner? They don't make meaningful decisions, aren't beings, and therefore aren't morally accountable. Ironically that ends up being a pretty good argument that we should just smash them all, because they're amoral, some of them dangerously so, but mostly it just means they're just things, and don't "deserve" anything. They aren't governed by morality internally so why should we apply it externally?
- salawat 8y ago
  >Questioning an idea doesn't automatically amount to advocating its "opposite" (in quotes because that would in turn reflect a further underlying supposition that the issue being discussed is binary in the first place, where it usually isn't).I'm not suggesting everybody take their beliefs about robots and replace them with some other opposite belief. I'm saying the appropriate belief might be none at all. Fair. Maybe just say that next time. Cuts out a couple of levels of implications that others may not follow. >What do robots deserve? I dunno, who cares, what's for dinner? They don't make meaningful decisions, aren't beings, and therefore aren't morally accountable. Ironically that ends up being a pretty good argument that we should just smash them all, because they're amoral, some of them dangerously so, but mostly it just means they're just things, and don't "deserve" anything. Either they are amoral or they aren't. It's a binary state. Modifying it by tacking on "dangerously" is just trying to score emotional points. (The irony.) Furthermore, we're increasingly seeing VERY significant decisions being made by digital entities, be they algorithms or robots. What news you see, the order of search results, what route you travel on the way home are ALL meaningful decisions. >They aren't governed by morality internally so why should we apply it externally? Because they are a by-product of our actions as moral beings. They are an extension of us in the world in that they would not exist if we had not found a need for them to exist. They also do at some level have a fundamental morality. Do they complete their task in the manner in which they were designed? If they do, they are good, if they don't, or do in an unintended way they are bad. The fact of the matter is that the childrens' behavior should elicit disgust or the recognition that the state of affairs was not right. Having to program a robot to run to an adult to avoid being "bullied" makes a sad statement about the lack of respect we find it reasonable to instill in our children for artifical systems put in place. There is also the message being sent, as pointed out by another poster, that the system is interacting according to our more positive moral values. If it can't even do that without anti-bullying programming, there is an issue, and it isn't with the machine. The story of Frankenstein's monster isn't just horrible because of the monster's eventual actions but also because the monster's creator, as well as the populace could not see in that "fleshy bucket of bolts" something that deserved some level of respect by virtue of its creation. I don't hold that flesh or pain is necessary to make an object worthy of respect. Only a purpose. Whether or not that purpose justifies acting maliciously towards it is entirely dependent on how it is being employed, and what the consequences and outcomes of its deployment are. I'll not go on further except to say I vehemently disagree with your viewpoint, and implore you to think some more on the matter.

joshmarlow 8y ago

Somewhat philosophical considerations of tbe moral standing of robot aside, there are a few pretty pragmatic reasons to study this. 1) if we build robots that elicit human empathy, then it could help avoid property damage to the robot - which is more about protecting the rights of the robot owner. 2) better understanding of how/why children are abusive to entities that they consider capable of suffering could give some hints about how to raise children to not be cruel to other people/animals. This could have impact ranging from reducing bullying to how we deal with crime to society'a willingness to go to war.