Nothing...since it falls outside the purview of his function.

Keep in mind, the Appliances in the Sink had personalities...they did not have minds. They're Chatbots, essentially - sophisticated Chatbots, yes but there is no awareness beyond user interaction and their own functionality.

Which highlights, I think, a potential moral dilemma in regards to synthetic sapience in the Fallout universe. How does a synthetic prove it has life, when the Old World was so good at pantomiming it?

Because of the logs he left detailing his escape, his reasons for leaving, and his philosophical debate that was raging in his head?

None of which points to some notion that he's somehow just mimicking or following through with pre-programmed instructions.

And calling a sentient android a "toaster" does nothing to diminish the question. Sentient androids are toasters in the same way we are primates. How about we ask the question why humans can't be enslaved? After all they are just "talky primates."

We are Carbon based machines, with a brain that learns from it's enviorment and compares it to our genetic memory and what it had learned before, with every given entry it produces a reaction and the brain changes itself in this process.
Every "emotion" also works like this, suggested by many behavioralists of modern age. I understand that if you believe in having "Souls", which is an abstract concept with no tangible way of defining it, it would be hard to see an AI as "equal" to humans.
For all instances and purposos, an android that can "learn" from it's enviorment only lacks the genetic memory which we humans developed over thousands of years and that forms our slightly different cultures and moralities.
Thing is they can "form" their own moralities over time, like we humans did, but they can do it A LOT faster, since they already have access to litreture and fast cominucations, they can think faster too.
So yeah, enslaving such an unshackled AI is not less wrong than regular people.

This. Slavery is above all else a condition. A condition of bondage.

Hard labor doesn't make slavery, even torture doesn't make slavery. pvssyl slavery is defined as a condition of bondage, of being reduced to property. If a sentinent android can recognize that state, understand that it doesn't want to be in it, and desire to be free. Why is that considered "Less wrong" to keep hold of the sentient than a human wanting the same thing?

Its hypocritical to suggest otherwise in my opinion. If you think that the ends justify the means or that slavery is justified in certain circumstances, fine, but to those that are doing so: don't trot out "Oh but they're just talky-toasters" and pretend you have the moral high-ground.

We're talking about advanced Android constructs with intelligence, personality, and cognitive capacity equal to humans in every respect, and which passes the Turing Test with absolutely flying colors (Alan Turing would be having a heart-attack if he saw Harkness). Not some damn toaster.

Depends if they're like Eden or not. He was supposed to be "human" but was totally not human at all.

Bigger picture. A group of people are creating what seem to be sentient machines. Machines which can and do malfunction and start "thinking for themselves". This is dangerous and stupid. Both the creators and their creations must be wiped out imo. Hopefully that giant energy weapon we see in the video can be directed at the institute.

If I built a machine and said machine did not work as I intended then it is time for some rethinking on how I made said machine. This machine has been built for a purpose and that purpose is to do what I want. Now suddenly because the machine has a malfunctioned and had a thought that I didn't program does not mean said machine should be left free to go about its malfunctioning business it should go to the shop.

Suddenly according to some people here just because it looks like a human I should continue to let my malfunctioning machine wander around doing its malfunctioning business whatever its said malfunctioning business is.

That is the true argument here should we let the broken machines continue to wander amuck?

Trying to stop broken machines (because that is what these synths or androids are broken machines) is not a holocaust. I fix my car when it breaks, I fix my computer when it breaks, and if I cant fix them I throw them out.

By that logic, no nation on Earth should be cooperating. It's not quite beneficial to a nation if it has to continue bartering with other nations for resources. Destroying all competing nations and intergrating their populace and infrastructure into oys own is better.

i really hope they make it side quest

The appliance liberation front is here! Hide your smartphones!

So all those Punga farms in Point Lookout don't exist anymore?

Dr Li and the scientists at Rivet city were developing a new portable fusion power generator, the thing that inevitably gets Prime working, as well as continuing work on small scale water purification, and attempts to grow fresh food.

Victoria Watts, the Railroad agent you meet in Fallout 3, brings that up, and she outright says they DO help actual human slaves when possible, but there's already numerous other organizations doing that, so they focus more on what no one else is doing, trying to free the Androids.

okay free the tosters!! free the toasters!!! free the fridges!! they are slaves set them free!!!!

Ahh, but you miss a couple vital points.

First of all, we have done that more than once. So why would the creations we have built to mimick us not do it?

Second, in this case both sides are HUMAN, even if there definitely were cases in history where the opposing sides didn't see each other as such. After you integrate them into your own state they will still consume those resources (unless you commit genocide on them), the only difference is that their taxes and expenses are now your problem. No matter which side wins the conflict, humanity will survive and recover from the losses.

Third and most important, humans are a pretty finite resource. Especially in a world like Fallout. Androids on the other hand are only really limited by the amount of raw material available after they aquired the necessary tools to reproduce themselves.

Managed to defeat a chapter of BoS and it cost 300 android lives? No biggie, with the materials in their bunker we can build 500 more in a matter of weeks. Harvest the fallen for spare parts and put them back together, have another 150 androids, reducing the losses to half. A simple game of numbers - and the odds are stacked against us.

If that sounds a bit like a zombie apocalypse, you're right. They can grow stronger with every victory. Humans on the other hand not so much - they take roughly 15 years to "build" a soldier to replace the fallen, no matter if the battle that killed them was a victory or not.

Once they start steamrolling it is too late, they will not be stopped.

For those that haven't, I really do recommend watching Blade Runner, if you want insight into what a perfect Human synthetic recreation would be like in terms of "is it alive?"

Coincidentally, I hope the game features some commentary on the existence of Robobrains. These things have bothered me since Fallout 1 - they're organic brains strapped into a robotic chassis and loaded with implanted "shackles". At least some Robobrains were forcibly converted, after all. If that isn't slavery, I don't know what is.

I think it really should depend on the sophistication of the Android(s) in question.

For instance, some things to consider; does anyone have a problem with Cogsworth being a an obedient robot slave? What about the dog? or any other follower?

Basically these are slaves in every respect, but label if they don't have any kind of sufficient leeway to quit being a follower on their own for whatever reason might suit their character motivations.

As to Cogsworth, would it change things if suddenly Cogsworth had a human-shaped body, but, was still in every respect Cogsworth?

As far as gaming goes, it's a question of player choices and how the player, or the player-character being roll-played would feel about the question.

Just because a machine looks and perhaps even acts human doesn't mean it is, or deserves human and/or humane treatment.

On the other side of that, just because something does not look human, doesn't mean it isn't human, or doesn't deserve human and/or humane treatment.

I suspect, if the writers have enough snap, we'll find a wonderfully confusing presentation of dichotomies where something that doesn't look human may be "more" human than something that looks and acts the perfect human, but isn't.

There will, of course, be stereotypes, cliches like feral ghouls, killer robots, deadly deathclaws, dangerous enemy super mutants, and many things that act like what's expected from their appearance, but, hopefully, we'll also see the other more deceptive side of the coin.

I'm still torn on this issue.

How could we truly know if it achieved sentience or if it just learned how to mimic it?

Let's just assume Harkness really did achieve sentience because of some kind of a bug. Would we have the right to fix that bug, or "abort" him, persay?

Should he be granted person-hood and the rights associated with person-hood once he achieves that sentience?

Do we have an obligation to give machines sentience if we have the ability to?

Is it ethical to create mindless machines to do work for us when it's unethical to do the same for human beings?

Biggest question for me is how are theses beings created by the institutde?

Are they human beings being substituted with artificial parts?

Or are they just scrap part being put together and given a human consciousness/soul?

Or is it just artificial intelligence with a software error?

Kinda hard to determine whether they are prosthetic of some kind or just pure machines.

Institute confirmed for wizards.

Some of you guys hate threads like this, but don't you guys think it is quite interesting to debate this sort of stuff? I mean, this is a video game after all, and the fact games can make the communities get into deep debates like this is interesting to me. It's like the Stormcloaks VS Imperials threads. I really enjoyed reading those, and seeing everyones' perspective on the subject makes you rethink things in real life. I think when threads like this come up, it is good that we, as a community, debate them.

But enough of that, here's what I think.

Initially I came into this thread thinking "wtf? really?", associating myself with the 'enslave android' crowd. I would compare them to the robots at my work that pick up plugs and move them to another assembly line. But then after reading some of the comments, it does make sense that an android can think, act, and feel, while that robot at work can't. One is 'living', while the other is inanimate.

It is an interesting topic. But in the end, I wouldn't really be able to choose a side until I experience it firsthand. Just imagine your best friend, whom you've known all your life, turned out to be an android. A stupid thought, I know, but doesn't it make you wonder? Would you just disassociate yourself with that friend? Do you think you could keep being friends with an 'android', this same android you've known and loved your entire life?

It almost relates to this story someone told me. They feel in love with some chick, dated them, really enjoyed each other, planned to get married... then went to a Family Reunion, and it turned out they were first cousins. What the heck do you do there? Do you stop intimately loving your 'cousin', or do you keep intimately loving them? You really don't know until you're in that situation.

So the point is, no one here knows an android (phones don't count), so no one really knows what it would be like, so you can't really base your opinions on much.

#androids arnt people/thread so no they are just machines nothing more

What would you do if the person you've known and loved your whole life turned out to be an android?

more than likely continue on as we always have...I'm not saying we don't get attached to thing and give them human qualities...but androids still arnt people they were designed and built...same any machine

"It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"

Your assumption is that the androids would be innately hostile, because they don't need us. I pointed out that if the logic is true, then actual nations wouldn't be bickering at the UN because they don't "need" one another.

So why do nations bicker at the UN? Because war hurts like hell. Not just in terms of population, but infrastructure, finances, and resources. Not to mention that if one nation decides to go all "world domination" on everyone else, everyone else gangs up on them. In short, bickering is actually a lot more beneficial (in most cases) at getting what you need than war.

What happens when an android comes on the scene? They find the world dominated by humans. And all that applies to nations would apply to them (in some form). They need resources- at the very least replacement parts. What's easier and more cost-effective for the android? Start a global war or start negotiating?

Yeah, if they win a global war they don't have to worry about bad deals or smelly humans. But to win that war, they would have to spend enough power, time, and resources to crush the combined forces of the world's nations. Not to mention that when its done, there will be a lot of infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt which... yep, you guessed it, requires power, time, and resources. How much of all that could have been put to better use by making things that the smelly humans would value for barter and trade, providing the android with a steady stream of resources?