Well, someday we might inevitably need to discuss robot rights, but that'd be somewhere past the point where we can declare a robot a sentient being. ;)
I'm certain in this context "rights" refers to the rights regularly afforded to human beings (as in the european proposal), not to the rights we might assign to non-sentient animals.
In any case, it seems to me that we don't understand consciousness and life enough to truly define any requirement for rights any better than the meaning of 'sentience'.
So, sentient means 'having the ability to learn new things' ? Kinda like humans, who are born with certain instincts, but are then able to learn new things or 're-program' themselves.
Well, there is a filed called 'machine learning', which helps design robots who will be able to learn. If they are able to learn and exhibit intelligent behavior, then we have to treat them as something more than rocks or hammers.
That is what the document is referring to - not pre-programmed robots, but AIs (robots who are able to learn, perceive, change behavior etc.).
I think you might have missed the full implication of that part.
Certainly, a sentient being can learn new things, but that's a matter of rule-base and memory. No actual intelligence required, IMO. Sentience, to me, goes toward a concept of self. Of being aware that one exists and is responsible for one's own actions.
Personally, I fine with having really smart-but-not-sentient hammers. I'd rather not have to lard up machinery with some touchy-feely "it's alive" sentiment. We won't have to have lots of hand-waving over whether or not that hammer is a slave or not.
If we can have an army of dumb robots performing the work that slaves do now more efficiently and cheaply, then we can easily spot the slave owners and remove them.
>> Certainly, a sentient being can learn new things, but that's a matter of rule-base and memory. No actual intelligence required, IMO. Sentience, to me, goes toward a concept of self. Of being aware that one exists and is responsible for one's own actions.
I think sentience is somewhat more limited. Most animals are sentient, in that they can feel and perceive and learn from experiences. Few animals besides humans are sapient, in that they can reason about complex and abstract ideas separate from direct experience, have a sense of self, and other criteria.
This is a trick. What does 'actual intelligence' mean? Term 'intelligence' is already vague, so adding 'actual' creates even more confusion.
Sentience, to me, goes toward a concept of self. Of being aware that one exists and is responsible for one's own actions.
Responsibility is a social construct. In the past, people would put non-human animals on trial, because in those societies other animals had responsibility for their acts. When it comes to awareness, that's a very vague thing and I'm not sure how you would test it without asking the subject (who might be fooling you). Also, why would having an attribute such as 'awareness' be a reason not to enslave someone who has the attribute?
It may be a gray area, but I, personally, have a moral and ethical bias against slavery and those who condone or enable it.
A hammer cannot be enslaved. A robot that is not sentient cannot be enslaved. I am against making something of that ilk that can be enslaved. Not because I disagree with the act of creation, but because I am against slavery.
It's not necessary to create sentience in our tools. Leave them as tools. It saves time, effort and anguish.