• remon@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 months ago

    We would call it a robot if it is a robot. Doesn’t matter how it was made. So really there is no logic that supports the 2nd statement.

  • DUMBASS@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yeah we would, it’s the end product not the production that defines it. Same way we refer to cars as cars even tho there’s been robots building them for decades.

    • pocker_machineOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I understand we would. I just left a shower thought on the possibility that an entity, if exists, called God would. Not trying to be pedantic here, just an amusing thought. 🙂

      • squaresinger
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        That point quickly devolves into “What would a hypothetical being that’s completely different from us and not knowable do?”

        Or to put it differently: “What would something we can’t understand be like?”

        It’s kind of a moot question to ask since the question already defines that there is no answer.

        • pocker_machineOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Interesting. Yes we are reducing the not knowable to knowable, which is moot.

  • yaroto98
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    No, then we’d be called gods and so would the robots.

  • Sergio@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    I kinda like this one. it’s got a “hidden step” in which if humans are created by gods, we are robots to those gods.