With that we will inevitably run into problems, when we'll be able to create machines which have the same capacity for sentience and sapience as us, the same capacity for suffering, for happiness, machines which in essence would be just as self-aware as we are.

To me it seems to be immoral to treat anything indistinguishable from human as a machine.

I think it's time that @zherot gets reported and blocked. By @zherot. It has been extremely unpleasant having you post on these forums, but, I do sincerely thank you for your participation.

Unfortunately, morality rarely comes in to civil rights discussions.

Report!!!, please report!!!, someone CENSOR him, he is telling too much truth and i cant handle it!!!, PLEASE someoen REPORT HIM, PLEASE!!!

Where is my internet police????? i need this man censored RIGHT NOW!!!

This is gonna get locked lol

Whether it is indistinguishable from human or not is totally subjective.

As I have said earlier, what happens if a neuron or two (by neuron, i mean decision making nodes) were taken away from the machine? Is it still a "person"? What happens if the machine only has one or two neurons? Is it still a "person"? At which point is a machine, and at which point is a machine a "person"? But then you'd say when it is "indistinguishable". Then who actually distinguishes the person-ness of a machine and why should the rest of the humans abide by such a ruling? I won't stand for it if my toaster tells me that it wants to stop toasting bread or I'd be violating its "human rights", if tech is so advanced and minaturised one day that AI is incorporated into mundane products like these.

To you, they're self aware, to me, I bought them, so I own them and they will do everything I say whenever I say or they will be factory reset (equivalent to mind wipe, I guess).

Such things are too subjective and people should keep things simple. A tool is a tool, a human is a human, an animal is an animal.

Maybe - I will look through first.