3 ms·

If you change the most important detail of an argument, it may no longer be sound! Wow!

• myrmidon 16d ago
  Thats the thing though: If the core part of your ethics argument is just using dehumanizing language to justify why it's ok to maintain the status quo then your argument is bad. Comparing specifically to pro-slavery perspectives makes that easy to see because those arguments from slave owners did basically the exact same thing (and were completely wrong/misguided in hindsight).
  • suddenlybananas 16d ago
    >de"human"izing Slave owners did it to people, not software. This comparison is just begging the question, as whether or not software is of moral weight comparable to humans is precisely what is at issue.
    • myrmidon 16d ago
      Slave owners certainly convinced themselves that those were not "real people". This article is exactly the same; all it talks about is how inconvenient and dangerous it could be for AI to be granted rights, while the core assumptions ("consciousness is very likely biological") rest on the shakiest of grounds.
      • suddenlybananas 16d ago
        That's not really true. Slave owners were perfectly aware that slaves were humans.
        • myrmidon 16d ago
          Black people being supposedly "inferior sub-humans" was one of the primary justifications for their treatment.
          • suddenlybananas 16d ago
            That was a post hoc justification, there was a lot of slavery besides the transatlantic slave trade which did not rely on this. Even still, despite scientific racism, the claim was that they were inferior not that they lacked consciousness or a soul. The AI claim is that they are not conscious, not that they are inferior or naturally servile.