a company sends a robot to watch it. 7 dollars for a single ticket.
the world spends their ticket money on hanging out with the robot to hear about the movie.
i can't make heads or tails of what's next. i am as fascinated as i am petrified.
Yes, but I can already do that by reading plot summaries on Wikipedia.
I've read precisely zero Harry Potter books, and of the films seen 1, 2 in the background muted, 3, and 4.
Despite this I know about Dolores Umbridge's personality (oh, and just recognised the reason for the name), that Snape Kills Dumbledore, and several other events and characters that were also not in any of those films.
(Alternatively: https://imgflip.com/i/91shhp)
What's next is the bot writing the whole story and generating the visuals. For the cost of one actual movie, Slopflix could turn out thousands of recap style stories.
I think the dystopian future we're heading towards is personalized phishing and/or scams that sends to your hijacked accounts' contacts that you're going through a hard time and requesting donations, using training data from crowdfunding sites.
Or, one-level more dystopian, hijacking social media accounts and advertising AI-generated Patreon-style content using the actual account owner's likeness.
If the laws are written in code (pun intended), they would look like:
if typeof(subject) == Human then
...And if we want to jog down this rabbit hole, I suggest starting with existing animals which we're realizing are sentient, but still prevent them from going into movie theaters. Once octopi can visit the movie theater, let's revisit the the robot argument.
That's not why. We don't know what test could be performed to determine if some future (or present) AI is or isn't sentient, we just assert it and get on with our lives.
No, the reason robots and software have no inherent rights is because the law says so.
As a demonstration proof that this is a purely legal status that has nothing to do with underlying nature, the co-inventors of the automobile did not have many rights afforded to her husband: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertha_Benz
And conversely many such rights do exist for corporations, which are not themselves sentient.
This is based in a limited theory of rights being delivered by a state as sovereign rather than inherent to every being. There are other valid ways of interpreting rights beyond "because the law say so."
I'm not saying you're wrong, those kinds of debate are great at telling you what the law should be, but the practicality of it is that a right you can't enforce is not useful.
Influence is power. For a stark example, consider Sharia.
You're right that using sapience is a bad way to identify what is and is not a species though.
This status difference is rooted in significant recognized differences and philosophical beliefs about the value of individuals, and in the idea that the law and society should exist to support that. It's pretty far from "purely legal" and the fact that we're going to let people own robots should be only one of the many clues that there's something different about them.
All that philosophical stuff, that only mattered because it resulted in a change in the law — and in the case of the US different philosophy led to a civil war to reject/enforce the law.
Wait, whats the threshold for sentience and do all humans meet that standard? Does the metric for the threshold depend on cooperation from the subject? Asking due to recent headline "One-quarter of unresponsive people with brain injuries are conscious." [0]
It seems more straightforward to make the speciesist argument until cyborgs start containing majority biological components.
A service dog can be brought into a theater just fine, as it is sufficiently intelligent to be trained to behave appropriately.
There's nothing that specifically prevents animals from entering a movie theater, I'ma say they mostly just generally lack 1) any intellectual desire/intent to watch a movie, 2) appropriate social behavior to cohabit a space with humans, 3) money to pay their ticket.
---
I would agree that current ML/NN based models might seem like a way to more or less circumvent copyright, but don't feel like there should be a blanket ban discriminating against potential intelligent entities that might arise in the future from more sophisticated technologies.
I also wasn't completely serious with my initial post. It is rather enjoyable to take an idea to the extreme and see what people's thoughts on it are.
>argues there’s no evidence
But for the moment, and I say this as someone very impressed and somewhat scared with AI progress, they're probably sufficiently un-person-like today that it's not unreasonable to ban current models.
Ants may not be taken seriously if they were to offer to pay, but then again nobody will stop them just walking in to a theatre without a ticket either.