Defining personhood is a complex and contentious issue legally and philosophically. Whipping out a dictionary doesn't solve the question. This is especially true when the dictionary is flat out wrong, as in this case. For example, corporations are legally recognized as persons in the US.

Slave cultures invariably collapse if they become dependent on them as its economically stupid.

It's also incompatible with a functioning and growing technological economy

.

Explaining a lot about the Institute.

Guess we just have to hope that sense wins the day and that movement is crushed. Monkeys and apes are not people. They are monkeys and apes.

Edit: On the topic of corporations that's also hogwash. No corporation should be granted ""personhood" because it's not a person.

A movement is not an established fact. Tell the toasters to get in line behind the Great Apes.

I get the impression that many people are not aware of Skynet.

Sure, just call those who disagree with you morons. That's how Cicero did it, right?

Kinda like how you pop off with supremacist towards people who disagree with you?

Dictionaries are designed for today's reality, not science fiction or even the future. In fact, they reflect common language use, not define it. That's why they keep having to add words for whatever the kids are saying these days. And definitions are constantly being revised.

Actually, some apes are people. You and I to name just two.

And the movement is to extend personhood to all the "great ape" members of the family Hominidae (humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans) not to monkeys or the "lesser apes".

We are just the six organs for the new robotic world. We are the caterpillar, they are the butterfly.

Human supremacism is the correct term for the position stated. Would you prefer anthropocentrist?

I shall amend my statement for clarity then. Non human apes are not people. Seems odd they'd leave out monkeys but seems odd that they'd try to grant person hood to non human apes too. Ah well.

Neither of those fit me simply because human and person are the same to me.

Actually, it's not odd at all. The effort to extend personhood to the other members of the Hominid family is not some random whim. It is based upon the well documented behaviours and capacities of the great apes which other primates do not share. Likewise with synths, as it happens, it's about the mind in question not the case it's in.

Yup, that's anthropocentrism. Only humans get to be people. End of story. Maybe you would prefer "Human exceptionalist"?

Machines have rights! HAHA....

AI is just software/specialist hardware neurons (decision making centres) bunched up together many times, with many weights that're learnt repetitively to get an "optimum result", without knowing what the "correct/best result" is (np problem). By saying they have rights, you are in fact saying, that a machine with computer code (undoubtedly very complex, but still code) and a huge database of all these variables set are "persons". LOL.

So, what happens when you take away one neuron? Is the machine still a "person"? Is the machine still a person if you take away two? Is the machine still a person if you take away all neurons and leave one intact? What about two?

Actually it is odd to me because they're not humans. You can't change that and as for your attempts to define me no they don't fit just because human and person are the same to me unless you have some secret definition for those that revolves solely around whether or not I would grant person hood to non humans. My understanding of those who fall under those terms revolves around some ideal that humans are greater than any other species on earth. I don't consider non humans people obviously but I have no supremacy complex. We are just another creature inhabiting the planet.

You lose thousands of neurons a day. As do we all.

I think you do not understand the meaning of the post, nor do you appreciate the impact of a software losing decision making centres. While I understand that not everyone has a Computer Science degree, I would highly encourage you to read up at least the basics about AI before responding in the future.

and what is a corporation made up of? people.

but that is off topic and for a different debate in probably a different forum altogether.

Yes people are the workforce of a corporation but that doesn't make a corporation a person.

It's very simple.

The identity of indiscernibles states that two things which are indistinguishable from each other are the same thing. A third generation synth cannot be distinguished from a human without an autopsy. When it comes to their sentience, they are self-aware and by that token have as much claim to human rights as humans do.

ROFL sure. let's just grant chimpanzees and gorillas personhood. they'll gain all the protections from government that are guaranteed in the constitution.

yeah, we'll give them a trial for when they steal a banana

they'll also be afforded the right to keep and bear arms of which the state cannot infringe upon. yeah, chimps and gorillas with rifles...

Oh yeah, they'll also be guaranteed the right to vote. You know, chimps and gorillas should have a say in who is their president

The movement is absurd. No, it's [censored] 100% moronic.

The thing is the institute doesn't condone slavery, they just do not put their creations on the same level as human beings. Personally, my opinion on the issue regarding synths went pro-institute when I learned all the synths could be shut-down with a shut-down code. It is pretty hard to see them as anything but highly intelligent human mimicking robots after seeing that, and plus, from what the game tells you about synths, there isn't enough information to see them as anything more.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I have done some light reading on the subject and find it interesting.

You are of course aware that the theoretical possibility of eventually creating actual artificial intelligence is taken very seriously by a number of programmers in the field. Papers are published on the subject in the relevant journals. People with PhDs and everything.

That's not what the Supreme Court said. Corporations are people and have the same rights.