"Someone who...", "A person who..." By this definition a machine cannot ever be a slave, since a machine is not a human being.

... was looking for an emoticon for "talking out my a$$" but I couldn't find one... so here's a turtle instead

Yikes!

If you've played Old World Blues, you could fuse a human and a Mr. Handy into a Robobrain as experiment there.

And yes, I agree. That would be slavery, combined with the (even more) horrible fact that somebody forcibly removed their brain and put it into a new body.

But they are not really part of this discussion, since they are cyborgs, cybernetically augmented organisms, not "pure" robots like the androids. (Or at least I hope the androids are robots. If they turn out to be cyborgs that changes the matter on a fundamental level)

Shhh you're going to trigger their inner-android.

If a super advanced android like Harkness is a "walking toaster" then we as humans are simply "walking bacon." The shape doesn't matter, the android could literally be in the shape of a toaster if they were self aware, capable of emotion, empathy, reasoning, etc...that's what's important. Where do those who would unquestioningly, immediately, and with zero empathy kill all androids because they're "toasters" draw the line? Is a human with artificial limbs still a person? What about a human with artificial limbs AND organs? What about a mechanical construct with a human brain? How about a carbon based (like all life we know of) sentient alien life form? What about a theoretical silicon based sentient alien life form?

I hope I run into talky the toaster in game, I'll remove it's batteries with a shotgun to the mouth.

Unfortunately some people don't like to deal, or are incapable of dealing, with the deeper philosophical questions that this idea of sentient AI constructs presents.

So they reduce the question to "Haha you support toasters and fridges lulz. Toaster liberation front *snicker*".

There's no slavery. They're machines that are performing a function

Go marry a waffle maker and stick your thing in it.

Clearly you have raised the level of discourse with your supreme advice. Now tell me, as I am very curious, is sticking your "thing" in waffle makers something you do often? I can only assume, given your advice, that you have tried it and enjoyed it if your readily advising others to do so.

Clearly we have stumbled upon something fascinating.

Much like Corporate/Retail Workers. Not people, just numbers.

An android is no more a slave than a toaster or lawn mower is a slave. They are a machine, built for a purpose to serve the betterment of human kind.

Well that's one point of view. I mean just because they exhibit sentient behaviour, does that make them sentient? They are programmed to do so.

Regardless, there will always be people that consider androids independent lifeforms and others that say they are purpose build machinery. It's a debate that has been explored for years. Examples are the replicants from Blade Runner, Data and the Doctor Emergency Medical Hologram from Star Trek shows, the Geth from Mass Effect just to name a few.

I guess it'll come down to how you want to role play your character. I'd also hazard a guess that similar views are going to be explored further in Fallout 4.

If it's the first it's not an android. It's a cyborg.

Considering they aren't supposed to be thinking for themselves, it seems more of a case of situation 3 than 2 in the eyes of the Institute.

No, it couldn't. An android, by definition, is a robot in the shape of a human being.

That actually brings me to my point about personhood for artificial intelligences. It seems bonkers that people who are pro-android are arguing the shape as much as they are, as if thinking wasn't what made it count, but looking like a more realistic mannequin. And you're whole "Where does it end!?" line of questing cuts both ways, as the whole "it looks human therefore human" silliness the pro-android people keep arguing would exclude intelligent life that doesn't look like us.

If an artificial intelligence with total sapience, free will, emotions, and so on is housed in a form like http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130207024637/metalgear/images/1/13/Character_02bladewolf.png, it's just as deserving of rights and protections as one housed in a body like http://www.4fallout.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Harkness-Androide-Fallout-3.jpg.

Considering Wired Reflexes perk you receive from Dr Zimmer when you take the Commonwealth side in the Replicated Man quest in F3, I can't be certain it isn't solution 1.

The way I see it, owning them isn't really a bad thing, it's how you treat them, really.

By all general definitions, they're things, not people. There's no real sentience at play here, just complex computer programming that allows dynamic choices and simulations of emotions and opinion. I always dare to say they're Sub-Human, although I really hate to use that term.

Say I'm given the option to purchase an Android. I treat my companions with respect, because I want them to have my back, from a roleplay point of view. I'm just a schmuck fresh out of a glorified freezer, I'm no one important, so I don't act all high and mighty in Fallout games, and if I'm traveling with someone, it's because we're friends, buddies, or have a mutual interest and camaraderie.

So even if I have an Android that I own, I'd be like Luke Skywalker with R2-D2. He's not my slave, he's my buddy.

Is that really in question though?

Maybe I'm missing something, but the majority of android sentient arguments haven't been regarding what the artificial intelligence looks like I don't think.

Whether or not it actually looks like a human has no bearing on the question as far as I'm concerned. Besides, an AI is shapeless and formless anyway. It can be "housed" in any form, or none at all.

Oh no, whatever will the Androidkin do!

FUS-RO-BOT!

That's a cybernetic augmentation, similar to the ones Dr. Usanagi can implant you with in New Vegas. Or the Cyborg perk in Fallout 3.

Upon reflection though, it would be interesting if it turns out the Commonwealth hasn't actually built androids at all, but instead made a bunch of cyborgs, memory wiped them, and refer to them as androids to justify using them as slave labor/lab rats.

I've seen a lot of people on this forum specifically bring up that A3-21 and other defective androids like him should be given rights and treated as a person because of looks.

They're still just machines, as evidenced by the command words that Pinkerton and Zimmer implanted in Harkness (whom was the most advanced of the androids, yet still a slave to command protocols). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_ByTbmAH10

I've given my answers to these questions before but hey, the reason I'm on forums so much is cuz I like repeating myself.

Better question: what's the difference? How do you know everyone around you isn't just mimicking human sentience really well? Even better question: why would it bother to 'mimic' human sentience that's beyond it's original programming?

No, in the same way you might have hopes for your child but if s/he winds up being an epic [censored]up or just choosing a radically different direction than what you envisaged you don't have the right to stop them. What you want for them stops mattering when they want something for themselves.

Something equivalent anyway, yes. If its attained the state of being which we ourselves use to give special rights then why exactly not?

No, non-existence does not yearn for existence. As far as we know.

Not if they're genuinely mindless. It's like saying you enslave a brick for building your house. It has no capacity to understand the idea of slavery, of the self, of objectionable, of freedom, of self-determination etc. There is nothing there to be unethical towards. Just for the sake of interest I think most of the machines in the FO world and probably a lot of the simpler androids fall in this category.

EDIT:

Your inherent, built-in weaknesses don't lessen your capacity for humanity. You're not less of a human before someone bashes your head in and turns you into a vegetable. And you're not less of a being for that being what shuts you down versus a phrase.

Philosiphical? I think not. Romancized? Yes.

It's not a question of philosophy because the answer to a simple question asked in regard to androids is also very simple. Are androids alive? No! They are machines like any other with the purpose of mimicking humans, but not alive, not a person.

But if we are gonna put the [censored] aside and talk straight, let's not pretend that many of these "save the androids" opinions are not based on fantasy fueled by the influence of the so-called anime generation.

Androids are machines and while not a reality at the moment they will be eventually and I suspect that time is not that far off based on the advancement of robotics across the world, but when the fantasy becomes reality they will be machines that you may program to be your friends, lovers and so on, even program them to think they are "alive", but in the end, they are just souless machines that were built from scrap and programed to mimik a living beign which is, by my own definition, a con, but unfortunately some people actually fall for that con.

Well perhaps that is why we wake up in vault 111 empty???!!!

God, I hope not. I really want the whole android business to be far removed from the main storyline. I don't mind it being a lengthy side quest if it's handled well, but if it's handled like a 10+ hour version of The Replicated Man, it's going to be very, very, very disappointing.

C'mon, Bethesda would never recycle a story-line they already played out...

...would they?

No. Not really.