Hacker News Reader

Comment by GJim | Hacker News Reader

> 2) No it's like saying that punching a lifelike woman who doesn't fight back is abusive (or at least pathological) behavior, which... it is.

So if I kick my car because it won't start, that is 'abusive'?

Get a grip mate.

View on HN

Why don’t you use the example of an unconscious but lifelike woman robot as the example? If the salient feature is that it’s not conscious, then abusing a lifelike woman robot is equivalent to kicking your car, right?

"Abusing" a robot? A machine?

You seriously have a problem with that?

Let's put it this way: would you be okay with your daughter dating someone who spends his leisure time beating and raping lifelike robotic women?

If no, then why?

If yes, then also "what the fuck lol"

How is that different or worth singling out from playing <violent computer game> or watching <violent film>?

EDIT: Am I really arguing with somebody in favour of 'rights' for AI's?

If they're not that different then why is your answer not just "I'm okay with my daughter dating someone who rapes and beats lifelike robotic women in his free time?"

Just say it if you believe it!

ah yes, because every instance of "abuse", even towards inanimate objects, has to be re-framed into the hypothetical abuse of a woman. Maybe we should ban the film Office Space because destroying a printer is one step away domestic violence.

I didn't say a woman. I said a lifelike robotic imitation of a woman. Which by your logic (not mine) is equivalent in every way to beating a printer or a breaking a ruler or kicking a car.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com