Abstract
The "Pleo" project has for purpose to raise awareness in regards to the subject of robot torture in relation to animal abuse and other similar ethical issues. In a workshop where Kate Darling, research specialist at the MIT Media lab, experimented on the matter regarding robot ethics, there were 4 groups of people that were given a Pleo. This robot uses technology that allows autonomous behaviours, which is not anticipatable, and which makes it more life-like than a toaster, for instance. Hence, the Pleo is able to tie relations through physical iterations with the human being and stimulate sympathy, as well as one's social side. After letting the participants "play" with the Pleo, they were asked to torture/destroy it, which disturbed them emotionally and lead them to refuse partaking in such action. Due to the reactions of the participants, this technology raises questions as to whether or not Aritificial Intelligence should be treated like human beings and pets.
Do you think that we should treat AI like human beings or pets?
Personally, my primary opinion right off the bat was that robots with IA were objects, and that objects shouldn't be treated like humans for the simple fact that they are objects and, according to Kant, solely have instrumental values, in contrary to humans who have intrinsic values(good in themselves). Although, after my listening to the interview, it was made clear to me why AI should be treated likewise to humans/pets. As explained by Darling, if abusing robots traumatizes us and disturbs us emotionally, those feelings can be correlated to our feelings regarding animal abuse. Moreover, I agree with Darling on the fact that we should protected AI in a similar fashion than live beings, and we should do it not because robots are approaching an era of consciousness, but instead recognize that it's about what we do for us and not what we do for the robots. In fact, animal rights arguments from Kant help support my position. If the mistreat of robots trigger similar feelings than animal abuse, then we can apply his argument to AI; if you torture animals, you're stepping over some piece of yourself that feels empathy for them and your consequently turning that off, which will, in the end turn you into a cruel person. Hence, the way someone treats animals will show whether they're a good human being or not, and in this case the same could apply to things that simulate pain or emotions, things like AI. Therefore, if you are willing to abuse a robot or cause a reaction in it, it means that you need to turn off a part of yourself that is going to be protesting against that act. As explained by Kate Darling, there is some danger in doing such act; "science shows that behaviours may translate and that if you teach yourself to overcome that emotional response, the same type of behaviour may translate to living things or other things." This is why I think AI shouldn't be treated as simply objects, as it is a tool for learning about the power of our subconscious in relation to our behaviours.
