I would argue that in order for a robot to be “gay” it must be capable of forming emotional bonds in fact, and not just play-acting at emotions due to programming, and therefore must be more than a simple “device”.
Just because an inheritance variable is non needed, it is still there as part of object inheritance.
If I have an vehicle class, which is designed to hold any vehicle, and I use it to make a car class, then it will inherit some methods which might only apply to boats, who cares? no one, but it is there.
and something being trivial and useless does not make it not true.
and who knows, maybe in a future update the sexuality of things you own might be relevant.
(tone check, I am joking here, trying to make funny conversation, and I want to check if it is reciprocal, i fear you take it as a genuine I will end up sounding like an antagonizing troll, in which case, I am sorry).
Oh, of course, all is in jest - or at least, in the theater of the mind.
But what I’m trying to get at is that either:
A) The robot is not self-aware, or emotionally aware, and therefore being “gay” or whatever is merely performative, an affectation that you, the owner, have applied to it as you might apply a new color of paint to a wall. In this case, the robot’s apparent gender or sexuality is functionally meaningless, as it has no decision-making capability of its own and no emotional involvement. It is a toaster.
or
B) The robot is self-aware, and emotionally aware, and therefore its capacity for a relationship (gay or otherwise) and gender presentation is very meaningful (it is an intelligent being with independent thoughts and desires). In this case, if you “own” it, and you are making gender presentation choices for it, then there are some very serious ethical concerns.
Those objects, if they have any of those attributes, is just from the user/owner. like the suit example. Have you ever worn anything that instantly became gay because you wore it? fuck look at what we’ve done with Blahaj.
However, we should probably bring clankers into the conversation. and they will have BS human attributes like gender, and that is a point we can all agree is BS.
Another issue is that it is impossible to tell if a robot is self aware or just “acting like it”. so on one extreme we can say that for safety we should asume they are aware. but come one, they aren’t, and research to make them aware is a waste of time and resources.
I would argue that in order for a robot to be “gay” it must be capable of forming emotional bonds in fact, and not just play-acting at emotions due to programming, and therefore must be more than a simple “device”.
counter point.
as it is something you own, it inherits your gayness.
a straight dude wearing a suit is just a suit. a lesbian with the same suit makes the suit gay.
object inheritance like programming
Hmm, if it is something that you own, then it is not someone (not a person, artificial or otherwise) and therefore it’s basically an appliance.
Who cares how a toaster presents itself in terms of gender and/or sexuality?
Just because an inheritance variable is non needed, it is still there as part of object inheritance.
If I have an vehicle class, which is designed to hold any vehicle, and I use it to make a car class, then it will inherit some methods which might only apply to boats, who cares? no one, but it is there.
and something being trivial and useless does not make it not true.
and who knows, maybe in a future update the sexuality of things you own might be relevant.
(tone check, I am joking here, trying to make funny conversation, and I want to check if it is reciprocal, i fear you take it as a genuine I will end up sounding like an antagonizing troll, in which case, I am sorry).
Oh, of course, all is in jest - or at least, in the theater of the mind.
But what I’m trying to get at is that either:
A) The robot is not self-aware, or emotionally aware, and therefore being “gay” or whatever is merely performative, an affectation that you, the owner, have applied to it as you might apply a new color of paint to a wall. In this case, the robot’s apparent gender or sexuality is functionally meaningless, as it has no decision-making capability of its own and no emotional involvement. It is a toaster.
or
B) The robot is self-aware, and emotionally aware, and therefore its capacity for a relationship (gay or otherwise) and gender presentation is very meaningful (it is an intelligent being with independent thoughts and desires). In this case, if you “own” it, and you are making gender presentation choices for it, then there are some very serious ethical concerns.
Those objects, if they have any of those attributes, is just from the user/owner. like the suit example. Have you ever worn anything that instantly became gay because you wore it? fuck look at what we’ve done with Blahaj.
However, we should probably bring clankers into the conversation. and they will have BS human attributes like gender, and that is a point we can all agree is BS.
Another issue is that it is impossible to tell if a robot is self aware or just “acting like it”. so on one extreme we can say that for safety we should asume they are aware. but come one, they aren’t, and research to make them aware is a waste of time and resources.