ROBOTS 'R US?

Recent tech surges involving AI have provoked a flood of reactions to AI and robots as existential threats.  In the process, discussions have turned to ethical issues in AI and robotics.  I have written in a number of books and articles about these issues and I simply want to pose some questions here about the assumptions people make about humans when they compare them to robots.  

1. Robots are machines, humans are not?  Why shouldn't we be considered organic machines?

2. Humans have agency, robots do not? This usually implies free will, a soul, or some such feature that distinguishes humans from machines.  Furthermore, this tends to go with the idea that we are distinguished by their individualism.  Individualism is a myth.  Humans are the most radically social of the (eu)social species, and their individual characteristics are functions of their travels through social networks.  It is going to be easy to sustain the distinction between robots and humans as long as we can treat robots as individuals.  Once we develop fully social robots, this will become more difficult. 

3. It's long past the era of the selfish-gene.  We are now in the era of epigenetics, the dependent gene, and cooperative genes.  

4. If you don't homogenize the human species, you will find that all the questions that can be raised about responsibility and freedom in robots can be raised about humans.

5.  As usual, what's missing from the conversations and debates about humans and robots  is sociological realism.  

 A DIALOGUE:

FROM ANN MILLER:
. This is what I got when I asked chat box AI to write a paragraph about growing up in the Bronx in the 50s.:
If you are a student or a writer, you could just take this outlines and fill in the specific details. I’d love to hear your opinion on whether this is positive or negative or both.

Growing up in the Bronx in the 1950s was an experience filled with vibrant energy and a strong sense of community. As a child, the bustling streets echoed with the sounds of neighborhood conversations, laughter, and the occasional honking of cars passing by. Life revolved around close-knit families and the local corner store, where kids would gather to buy penny candies and share stories. Summers were spent playing stickball in the streets or seeking refuge from the heat at the local fire hydrant. The iconic brownstone buildings and stoops served as meeting places, where neighbors would gather to catch up on the day's events. The Bronx of the 1950s was a place where diversity thrived, fostering a rich tapestry of cultures and traditions. The memories of those days still evoke a nostalgic warmth and a sense of belonging that will forever be cherished.

HI, Ann: I don't know that I can say whether this is positive or negative or both.  I can tell you that this is a clever parlor trick,  a sophisticated version of ELIZA – see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

Whereas ELIZA played off of a data base of human responses, your ChatGPT is responding to a much broader data base of online information.  If you sent a smart 7 year old to the reference section of the library with the same prompt ("write a paragraph about growing up in the Bronx in the 50s") you'd get something like the paragraph you got.  ChatGPT has grammar, spelling, and syntax rules to draw on that the 7 year old might not have but s/he+ would come up with essentially the same paragraph.  I have devoted an entire chapter to contemporary chatbots and the claims that they are an existential threat or the Second Coming in my latest book (in progress: Safeguarding Truth in the Age of Science Denial).  But even if they became sentient they would pose no more of a threat than humans already pose to themselves and the planet.