During the day, it scans the Internet for new and exciting types of toast.

白天時，它會掃描網際網路知道有關新和令人興奮的的吐司的資訊

Maybe it asks you about your day, and wants to chat about new achievements in toast technology.

它可能會問你今天過得如何？以及談一些新的烤麵包技術成就。

At what level would it become a person?

但是什麼準則才算是人類？

At which point will you ask yourself if your toaster has feelings?

這時你會問自己，你的烤麵包機有感覺嗎？

If it did, would unplugging it be murder?

如果真的有感覺，那拔掉電源是謀殺嗎？

And would you still own it? Will we someday be forced to give our machines rights?

此時你還擁有它嗎？會不會有一天我們會被迫給予機器權利呢？

AI is already all around you.

AI（人工智慧）已經在你的周圍

It makes sure discounters are stocked with enough snacks,

它確保商店中有足夠的零食存貨

it serves you up just the right Internet ad, and you may have even read a new story written entirely by a machine.

它讓你看到你有興趣的網路廣告，而你或許看過了全部由機器所寫成的新聞報導

Right now we look at chat bots like Siri and laugh at their primitive simulated emotions,

現在我們來看看像Siri的聊天對話，然後嘲笑她原始的模擬情緒

but it's likely that we will have to deal with beings that make it hard to draw the line

不過以後我們很有可能會很難劃清我們面對的

between real and simulated humanity.

到底是真人或是AI

Are there any machines in existence that deserve rights?

現在有沒有任何值得擁有權利的機器呢?

Most likely, not yet. But if they come, we are not prepared for it.

很有可能....沒有。但如果真的有的話，我們還沒有準備好

Much of the philosophy of rights is ill-equipped to deal with the case of Artificial Intelligence.

大部分的人權哲學家都無法處裡人工智慧的例子

Most claims for right, with a human or animal, are centered around the question of consciousness.

大部分要求權利的，人類或動物，問題的核心在於是否擁有意識

Unfortunately, nobody knows what consciousness is.

不幸的是，沒有人知道意識到底是什麼

Some think that it's immaterial, others say it's a state of matter, like gas or liquid.

有人認為它不是物質，也有人說它是物質狀態，像是氣體或是液體

Regardless of the precise definition, we have an intuitive knowledge of consciousness because we experience it.

先不管意識的精準定義，我們對意識有直觀的知識是因為我們經歷過它

We are aware of ourselves and our surroundings, and know what unconsciousness feels like.

我們對自身和我們四周有知覺，而我們也知道失去意識是什麼感覺

Some neuroscientists believe that any sufficiently advanced system can generate consciousness.

一些神經科學家相信任何足夠先進的系統可以產生意識

So, if your toaster's hardware was powerful enough, it may become self-aware.

所以如果你的烤吐司機有很強大的硬體，它或許就有自我意識

If it does, would it deserve rights?

如果是這樣的話，它能擁有權利嗎

Well, not so fast. Would what we define as "rights" make sense to it?

那個...還沒那麼快。要怎麼讓它理解我們所定義的「權利」呢？

Consciousness entitles beings to have rights because it gives a being the ability to suffer.

擁有意識的物種之所以擁有權利是因為他們有受苦的能力

It means the ability to not only feel pain, but to be aware of it.

這代表不只是有感覺到痛，還有意識到痛的能力

Robots don't suffer, and they probably won't unless we programmed them to.

機器人不會感受到痛，而且除非我們編寫他們感受到痛的程式，他們大概一輩子感受不到

Without pain or pleasure, there's no preference, and rights are meaningless.

沒有了痛與快樂，就沒有偏好，而權利就豪無意義

Our human rights are deeply tied to our own programming, for example we dislike pain

我們的人權與我們人體的編程是緊緊綁在一起的。例如說我們不喜歡疼痛

because our brains evolved to keep us alive.

是因為我們的大腦進化成讓我們生存

To stop us from touching a hot fire, or to make us run away from predators.

讓我們不接觸熱火，或讓我們躲避掠食者

So we came up with rights that protect us from infringements that cause us pain.

所以我們制定權力保護我們讓我們不受侵害讓我們遭受疼痛

Even more abstract rights like freedom are rooted in the way our brains are wired

更為抽象的權力像是自由。是因為我們的大腦

to detect what is fair and unfair.

能偵測什麼是公平和什麼是不公平

Would a toaster that is unable to move, mind being locked in a cage?

如果有一台烤土司機無法移動，它會不會在意被關在牢籠裡？

Would it mind being dismantled, if it had no fear of death?

如果它沒有對死亡的恐懼，它會不會在意被拆解？

Would it mind being insulted, if it had no need for self-esteem?

如果它沒有自尊的話，它會不會在意被羞辱？

But what if we programmed the robot to feel pain and emotions?

但如果我們設計機器人能感受疼痛和情緒呢？

To prefer justice over injustice, pleasure over pain and be aware of it?

偏好正義多於不義，喜悅多於疼痛，且能夠有所感受呢？

Would that make them sufficiently human?

這樣會讓他們更加人類嗎？

Many technologists believe that an explosion in technology would occur,

許多科技學家相信爆炸性的科技突破將會發生，

when Artificial Intelligence can learn and create their own Artificial Intelligences,

當人工智慧能學習並創造

even smarter than themselves.

比它們自己更加聰明的人工智慧時

At this point, the question of how our robots are programmed will be largely out of our control.

在此時，我們將無法控制機器人如何被設計

What if an Artificial Intelligence found it necessary to program the ability to feel pain,

如果人工智慧發現設計感到疼痛的能力是有必要的呢？

just as evolutionary biology found it necessary in most living creatures?

就像演化論生物學家在大多數現存的物種身上所發現的呢？

Do robots deserve those rights?

機器人值得擁有權力嗎？

But maybe we should be less worried about the risk that super-intelligent robots pose to us,

但或許我們不應該擔心超級人工智慧對我們造成的威脅

and more worried about the danger we pose to them.

而更加擔心我們對它們造成的危險

Our whole human identity is based on the idea of human exceptionalism,

我們人類的身分是建立在人類例外主義的想法之上

that we are special unique snowflakes, entitled to dominate the natural world.

我們是特別且獨特的，給了我們統治世界的權力

Humans have a history of denying that other beings are capable of suffering as they do.

以前，人類否認其他物種也能像人類一樣感受到疼

In the midst of the Scientific Revolution, René Descartes argued animals were mere automata―robots if you will.

在科學革命中期，勒內·笛卡兒認為動物只不過是一種自動機器

As such, injuring a rabbit was about as morally repugnant as punching a stuffed animal.

因此，傷害一隻兔子跟捶一隻填充動物玩偶在道德上是一樣的

And many of the greatest crimes against humanity were justified by their perpetrators

許多最嚴重的反人類罪都被肇事者逃脫罪名

on the grounds that the victims were more animal than civilized human.

理由是受害者與其說是文明人，不如說是動物。

Even more problematic is that we have an economic interest in denying robot rights.

而更有問題的是，否認機器人權對我們來說更有經濟上的誘因

If can coerce a sentient AI―possibly through programmed torture―into doing as we please,

如果我們能強迫一個有情感的AI做任何我們要求它所做的事，

the economic potential is unlimited.

其中的經濟效益是無限大的

We've done it before, after all.

畢竟我們以前就這麼做過

Violence has been used to force our fellow humans into working.

我們使用暴力迫使我們的人類夥伴工作

And we've never had trouble coming up with ideological justifications.

而我們從來沒有產生關於思想上的罪孽

Slave owners argued that slavery benefited the slaves: it put a roof over their head and taught them Christianity.

奴隸主認為奴隸制度對奴隸有利：他們給奴隸遮風避雨的地方並教導他們基督教

Men who were against women voting argued that it was in women's own interest to leave the hard decisions to men.

反對婦女投票權的男人，認為是女人自願把艱難的決定權交給男性的

Farmers argue that looking after animals and feeding them justifies their early death for our dietary preferences.

農夫認為他們照顧及飼養動物，可以讓動物為了我們的飲食偏好提早死去變得正當

If robots become sentient, there will be no shortage of arguments for those who say

如果機器擁有情感，它們也會不斷和認為機器不該有權利的人爭辯，

that they should remain without rights, especially from those who stand to profit from it.

他們應該仍然沒有權利，特別是從中獲利的人。

Artificial Intelligence raises serious questions about philosophical boundaries.

人工智慧提出了關於哲學界限的嚴重問題。

What we may ask if sentient robots are conscious or deserving of rights,

如果有感知的機器人有意識或應該享有權利，我們可能會問什麼，

it forces us to pose basic questions like, what makes us human? What makes us deserving of rights?

它迫使我們提出一些基本問題，例如，是什麼讓我們成為人類？ 是什麼讓我們值得享有權利？

Regardless of what we think, the question might need to be resolved in the near future.

無論我們怎麼想，這個問題可能需要在不久的將來解決。

What are we going to do if robots start demanding their own rights?

如果機器人開始要求自己的權利，我們該怎麼辦？

What can robots demanding rights teach us about ourselves?

要求權利的機器人可以教我們什麼關於我們自己的事情？

Our friends at Wisecrack made a video exploring this very question using the philosophy of Westworld.

我們 Wisecrack 的朋友製作了一段影片，利用《西方世界》的哲學來探討這個問題。

Wisecrack dissects pop culture in a unique and philosophical way.

Wisecrack 以獨特且富有哲理的方式剖析流行文化。

Click here to check out the video and subscribe to their channel.

點擊此處查看影片並訂閱他們的頻道。