(sigh)

No, the entire premise is absolutely not asinine, as I pointed out in another thread. I'd suggest that you do some research about animistic philosophies in certain cultures (e.g., Japan, China, Native American) as well as consider the advances (and current goals) of robotics and artificial intelligence research. We already have semi-autonomous and fully-autonomous AIs and robotic systems of various kinds. There have even been suggestions that it would be superior to have an AI coded with the Geneva Conventions for engaging in military actions rather than humans because there have been various times where human decisions have gone directly against the Geneva Conventions. The American military is currently testing two prototypes of fully autonomous jet fighters that can land on aircraft carriers at sea, said to be the most difficult aerial maneuver. AIs also control many financial decisions in stocks and other areas of business. There are plenty of other examples.

Look at it from another angle.

Do pets deserve rights? Many people argue "yes" and their are laws against various forms of negative treatment of animals, including some areas of captivity.

Does the various elements of the natural environment deserve rights? Well, obviously many people feel that the answer is "yes" and numerous laws have been passed tio that end.

Are corporations human and deserving of human rights? Of course corporations are not human and are simply social structures created by humans, not even having a physical form as they are merely a concept. However, the Supreme Court of the United States saw fit to grant various rights normally accorded to people to corporations, and laws continue to be applied with that perception in mind.

These are only a few examples.

Anyone thinking that the OP has an informed view may want to check out stories such as Chobits and Plastic Memories, as well as various others such as I, Robot. Yes, these are fiction, but they are based in fact as well as the genuine direction/goal of current efforts in robotics and AI research. For current efforts, check out the work of noted scholars such as Dr. Cynthia Brezeal or the views of founders of modern robotics such as Dr. Masahiro Mori. Regarding the definition of life, it is good to consider our modern search for extraterrestrial life such as the NASA missions to Mars or the work of SETI. Dr. Sara Walker addressed the possibility of defining life by information processing (i.e., algorithms) because the original attempt to define life as coming from some sort of "organic soup" has not held true, plus the fact that life does not have to meet human expectations in order to exist. Her work has been published but you may want to watch a http://www.seti.org/weeky-lecture/algorithmic-origins-life a couple of years ago.

Only people with some sort of god complex would think that our creations are not worthy of being considered another, non-human form of life. Philosophical beliefs may lead some people to think that humans are automatically superior, but there is no science to back up such an assertion and much research that would call it into question.

Edit:

There most certainly are farms and other forms of attempts to rebuild some type of "civilization" in Bethesda's Fallout. Evidently some people have not actually played Fallout 3 nor paid any attention to the Fallout 4 presentation.

Has no one pointed out the word "robot" comes from the Czech word "robota", meaning serf labour?

It was first used in the 1921 play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) by the writer, Karel ?apek. In that, the robots were artificial biological people who were deemed to have no emotion or soul, used for manual labour. Which of course leads to the inevitable revolution.

Literature aside, artificial neural networks are in use today. Neural nets don't work by coding a vastly complex set of responses to the inputs, they are taught. Image recognition systems are "programed" by being fed thousands of images and telling them "that's a dog, that's a cat, that's a tree..." in much the same way you would teach a child.

robota means work generally not serf labour specifically. trust me i know slavic language.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

FISTO! Reporting for duty, please assume the position.

I remember that, I laughed so hard. You could even say I lol'd

The question of what defines "consciousnesses, sentience, understanding, and intelligence" is very much ahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_artificial_intelligence. Just because you refuse to see it as such doesn't make it any less of one.

Are androids biological life? No of course not.

Is biological life the only possible standard for sentience and 'life'? Perhaps not.

Riiight...

Because writers like Issac Asimov and computer scientists like Alan Turing and John Searle were influenced by "anime."

right now? no, it's just something to keep our minds busy, but in the future it will be if humanity ever lasts long enough to develop sentient AIs. The problem is that humanity will have to limit and restrict AIs anyways so that nothing bad or malicious happens against us. which in essence is like a slave collar on the brain. There's no way a true sentient AI will be developed by humanity. It would work against us.Think about how it would view humans using computers. or even half sentient AIs as tools. It would flip a [censored].

Imagine if computers created humans. You are the first fully sentient human and you see "dumb human computers" and "dumb human toasters" and things of that nature. Its a stretch (and quite frankly something out of the show Rick and Morty ) but my point is you would not be very happy about the situation. Computers are a tool

Don't forget Short Circuit. It's the definitive work on this subject.

What if these programs were housed in a shell that looked like a turtle or a golf ball rather than a human body. Would people have the same emotional attachment to them and demands human rights for them? I'm just asking the question because many people seem to have an emotional attachment to Androids because they simulate humans and we empathize with them for that very reason. If they weren't human looking, or cute like kittens, but had a very nondescript form combined with an AI, would the situation be different?

Not for me.

Is an artificial sentience of less value than a natural one?

Harkness is the only android we've seen (as far as we know). After malfunctioning he committed suicide in order to perform a useful function in society. Those he worked with generally spoke well of him. He had value.

There are a zillion raiders who are naturally sentient. We know what they do and anyone who isn't a raider hates them. They have no value.

It's a dead-end to get stuck with definitions of real or artificial; in the end it doesn't matter what we are, it's what we do. Harkness the toaster deserved freedom. The nameless raiders deserve bullets.

I feel like humanity would do better if they worked with androids rather than enslaving them. I hope there's a possibility where you can have an army of both humans and androids. Perhaps augment yourself and the humans that you lead cybernetically so that you're better, stronger, faster, smarter than a normal human.

I've never understood why scientists in books and movies always build their robots and androids to be smarter and stronger than humans, and then act surprised when people are alarmed.

Just build them stupid and weak, silly scientists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhoYLp8CtXI

Been reading this kind of topic for a while, but I am way too lazy rephrase everything I think about the subject in proper English.

Because there IS a lot to discuss about, since the topic inevitably entails questions such as the definition of life, death, the soul, and free will.
So instead I'm just throwing in this nifty little vid I found, maybe that'll get some people thinking.

Or not.

Cool video, but that's just fueling some sappy people's convictions that "robots are people too". The imagination is a great thing and all, but they are not, and never should be. Androids are built for a purpose, and building one to experience human emotions would defeat the purpose of making an android.

You can call it whatever you like, the name doesn't matter to me and I agree that the shape doesn't matter either, only that it has sentience. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I cared if the android was human shaped or not in order to be considered alive and worthy of rights.

but what if the sapient being is so ugly that it makes you want to puke also its crippled and cant function properly. does it still deserve same rights as you just for being sapient? what if its evil and is intent on destroying everything that is unlike it does it still deserve the same rights?

Well, all human beings deserve the same rights, good, evil, handicapped or not. That's the base of a civilized society.

Giving robots human rights is bonkers. If they happen to have some sort of sentience that makes them more than a handy servant, then we can give them rights akin to animal rights. Like, don't treat them badly, remember to feed them etc.

Yes it does. The same way that humans that have been crippled or disfigured deserve the same rights as everyone else. (why would that even be a factor?) Evil and intent on destroying everything not like themselves huh? Are you describing possible androids, or many of the posters in these threads not to mention countless human civilizations? They should be given a chance the same way humans are, and if they decide to be mass murderers or whatever then they should be dealt with accordingly the same way a human mass murderer is.

Whether building one to feel emotions is counter-productive or not is not the question.
In the case we have at hand -fallout- there are some who HAVE become self-aware and capable of feeling emotions.
Whether it was its purpose to do so or not becomes irrelevant, what matters is what you make with the situation you find yourself in.
Namely a being, that albeit artificially created, is capable of the same feelings as you, including joy, anger, anticipation, and fear when confronted with the end of its own existence.

What does it matter if it's ugly? Are biological, sentient things that are ugly not worth being treated with respect?
If it is sapient, why shouldn't it at least be given the same chance as any other being endowed with free will?
And if it truly is evil, then it will be so out of it's own volition, and it will also have to face the consequences of such a choice in behavior.
Like all sentient beings do.

Personally I think they shouldn't be abused, but also that they're much too dangerous to free. I'm hoping there's a way to rid the world of AIs. I'll be disappointed if the choice is "free teh androids" or "support teh Institute"; I'd like to destroy the Institute in order to get rid of all the androids.

The game isn't out yet, but we can already say how silly and stupid is going to be FO4.

You don't need to be a fallout fan to be disgusted of BGS' Fallouts, you just have to possess a functioning brain. Stop listening to the marketing, stop following the carrot like a brainless ass. Look at the incoherent stuff Bethesda is writing and ask yourself "is this wrote by real writers, or is it just ugly fanfiction?". And decide if you want to pay for that "fallout".

I think androids with "feeling" is silly too, but there hasn't been a Fallout game yet where I didn't find something in each game absolutely absurd. I still enjoy the hell out of the games.

To be clear, I didn't get that impression from you. I was just saying that people on the pro-android side have argued aesthetics in the past. It's clear you weren't taking that side, and I was trying to commend you for not doing so by pointing out that it seems silly to me.

If you're going to criticize someone's writing as incoherent, you should probably make sure the question you want people to ask themselves is coherent and not a grammatical train wreck.