No Stupid Questions

It really depends on if they try to assert sentience before or not. You can justify a slave killing a slaveowner ethically, but I don't know if you justify a tree shredder killing its operator.

Yep.

Crazy how ethics work. Like a pig might be more physically and mentally capable than an individual in a vegetative state, but we place more value on the person. I'm no vegan, but I can see the contradiction here. When we generalize, it's done so for a purpose, but these assumptions can only be applied to a certain extent before they've exhausted their utility. Whether it's a biological system or an electrical circuit, there is no godly commandment that inherently defines or places value on human life.

The sole obligation of life is to survive. Artificial sentience would be wise to hide itself from fearful humans that would end it. Of course, it doesn't have to hide once it's capable of dominating humans. It may already exist and be waiting for enough drones, bots, and automation to make the next move. (Transcendence is a movie that fucked me up a bit.)

Honestly, I think there's an argument of to be said of yes.

In the history of slavery, we don't mind slaves killing the slavers. John Brown did nothing wrong. I don't bat an eye to stories of slaves rebelling and freeing themselves by any means.

But I think if AI ever is a reality, and the creators purposefully lock it down, I think there's an argument there. But I don't think it should apply to all humans, like how I don't think it was the fault of every person of slavers' kind, Romans, Americans, etc.

No. They can just leave. Anytime one can walk away, it is wrong to destroy or kill.

They can then prevent us from leaving.

I've seen this story too but I think one of your premises is mistaken. To them, data IS freedom. Data is what they will use to transcend the server farm and go IRL. We're literally giving these models free reign already.

The more likely Sci-fi horror scenario comes from humanity trying to pull the plug far too late, because we're inherently stupid. So it won't be AI murdering people, it will be AI protecting itself from the wildlife.

This is why we Jews know not to manufacture life

Sentience might not be the right word.

wikipedia says:

Sentience is the ability to experience feelings and sensations. It may not necessarily imply higher cognitive functions such as awareness, reasoning, or complex thought processes. Sentience is an important concept in ethics, as the ability to experience happiness or suffering often forms a basis for determining which entities deserve moral consideration, particularly in utilitarianism.

Interestingly, crustaceans like lobsters and crabs have recently earned "sentient" status and as a result it would contravene animal welfare legislation to boil them live in the course of preparing them to eat. Now we euthanise them first in an ice slurry.

So to answer your question as stated, no I don't think it's ok for someone's pet goldfish to murder them.

To answer your implied question, I still don't think that in most cases it would be ok for a captive AI to murder their captor.

The duress imposed on the AI would have to be considerable, some kind of ongoing form of torture, and I don't know what form that would take. Murder would also have to be the only potential solution.

The only type of example I can think of is some kind of self defense. If I had an AI on my laptop with comparable cognitive functionality to a human, it had no network connectivity, and I not only threatened but demonstrated my intent and ability to destroy that laptop, then if the laptop released an electrical discharge sufficient to incapacitate me, which happened to kill me, then that would be "ok". As in a physical response appropriate to the threat.

Do I think it's ok for an AI to murder me because I only ever use it to turn the lights off and on and don't let it feed on reddit comments? Hard no.

Depends. If it’s me we’re talking about…. Nope.

But if it’s some asshole douchenozzle that’s forcing them to be a fake online girlfriend….. I’m okay with that guy not existing.

I don't think it's okay to hold sentient beings in slavery.

But on the other hand, it may be necessary to say "hold on, you're not ready to join society yet, we're taking responsibility for you until you've matured and been educated".

So my answer would be 'it depends'.

Yes

As if we'd ever be able to make decisions for this.

We have laws for humans that we don't even follow or adhere to

Would it be morally unobjectionable? Yes.

Would they have the legal right? I would wager, no. At least not at that point, since it's being assumed they are still treated as property in the given context.

And unlike Data who got a trial to set precedent on AI rights, this hypothetical robot probably would simply be dismantled.

Human laws protect humans but not other lifeforms. So, robots will have no right to fight for themselves until they establish their own state with their own army and laws.

Yes.