Sentient Machines

How do you feel about Artificial Intelligence?

I look forward to the advancements	60.0%	[ 9 ]
We can't trust machines	20.0%	[ 3 ]
(other: please post opinion)	20.0%	[ 3 ]
Total Votes:			[ 15 ]

[Luke_DeVari]

Je Nique vos Merdiers

Why do people treat AI like it's not around yet? What the hell do you think Google is?

As for this "sentience" nonsense, define precisely what you mean by "sentient", and then explain how such a thing would be beneficial to a machine.

(( Implying you haven't read my previous posts where I answer these very questions in this thread...))

[Luke_DeVari]

Vannak

Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene describes why this emerges: That most human behavior such as xenophobia, altruism, and selfishness are all our genes doing, trying to ensure that they survive over other species genes. The whole point of his book is more or less that we're machines made by our genes. The point of us isn't to survive, but to make sure our genes survive. This is why we're xenophobic and view other species as lower: they don't have our genes. The less something is genetically like us the more likely we're not not give a s**t about it's well being.

Now a machine, not having to had going through the millions of years of evolution, would not need to have this pressure, as it has no genes to pass on. We have no reason to think a machine would feel differently between us and machines once we understand why humans have that trait.

On the genetic note, perhaps part of the average person's unease with machines comes from the fear that machines will be smarter than them. That makes us feel useless or inferior, which is obviously quite a negative experience. Our genetics become comparatively obsolete if you're just looking at an information-processing arms race. I think it's quite apparent that humans would continue reproducing even after super-smart machines exist, but we can't escape the feelings of fear that we react to on a primal level... and not all of us can rationalize with that fear so well, especially when it's egged on by media like the Terminator series.

Also, there is an issue of morality in having relations with a robot because it's deviant behavior and you obviously can't start a family biologically with a machine. Some people want companionship without kids... but that's seen as really selfish by a lot of people in our culture (At least it is here in America, I'm not going to generalize this social opinion of deviance for the whole world).

By the way, Japan already has laws against making sex-bots because the population replacement rate is so low. They don't want any technology that might be discouraging to the continuation of the japanese race. (I know this is a bit irrelevant, but still humorous, a guy in Japan has legally married his pillow and that made it into world news online, appropriately under the "offbeat news" section. I'd argue droids are at least a little more human than a pillow...)

[Luke_DeVari]

Suicidesoldier#1

I think AI's are fine.

There is no need to give sentience to a robot and then enslave them.


Any sentient creature could make mistakes based off of their own assumptions anyways.

At least a computer would preform flawlessly and it would all be human error.


I don't want my calculator deciding to do 5 x 8 instead of 4 x 8 anyways.

That would be silly.

The point of limiting free will in robots is to maintain that flawlessness. I wouldn't want a rogue calculator either, and god forbid my air conditioner goes nuts on me in the summer.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Luke_DeVari

Suicidesoldier#1

I think AI's are fine.

There is no need to give sentience to a robot and then enslave them.


Any sentient creature could make mistakes based off of their own assumptions anyways.

At least a computer would preform flawlessly and it would all be human error.


I don't want my calculator deciding to do 5 x 8 instead of 4 x 8 anyways.

That would be silly.

The point of limiting free will in robots is to maintain that flawlessness. I wouldn't want a rogue calculator either, and god forbid my air conditioner goes nuts on me in the summer.

You can't really limit free will if you give them sentience- and why would you do such a sick thing?

Give someone a conscious and then force them to be a certain way- why not just make a calculator, or a pair of hands to do a job for you, why do they need to think anything beyond what it takes to accomplish a task?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Vannak

Luke_DeVari

Vannak

I honestly don't see why people are so distrustful of machine AI. Putting an AI in charge of something like, say, the energy grid, is not much different from electing public figures. We trust other people to be put in charge of vast power and influence.


People think, for some reason, that an intelligence not evolved from the need to reproduce and survive, has any reason to differentiate machines and humans. Xenophobia is a biological trait that comes from reproduction with the same species. There's no reason to think a machine would ever feel any more or less "Threatened" by humans than machines.

I had never before thought about how Xenophobia plays an important role in the social tension against machines. Humans generally do have a natural tendency to distrust those outside of their own race or culture, which, by the evolutionary perspective in psychology, was an adaptive trait in early man to put one's own people before others for survival's sake. Perhaps a degree of dislike is encouraged by our natural tendency for self-preference, except in this case, it's a matter of caring about one's own species to the point of disdain for synthetic beings.
On the side of environmental influences on our psychology, an amount contempt for machines has been instilled in many of us from the messages we receive from media, though they are not necessarily messages based in fact or logic.

Very interesting to think about. It seems no matter how you slice it, humans are egocentric by nature, but again by the evolutionary view, that kind of thinking is adaptive for genetic survival.

Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene describes why this emerges: That most human behavior such as xenophobia, altruism, and selfishness are all our genes doing, trying to ensure that they survive over other species genes. The whole point of his book is more or less that we're machines made by our genes. The point of us isn't to survive, but to make sure our genes survive. This is why we're xenophobic and view other species as lower: they don't have our genes. The less something is genetically like us the more likely we're not not give a s**t about it's well being.

Now a machine, not having to had going through the millions of years of evolution, would not need to have this pressure, as it has no genes to pass on. We have no reason to think a machine would feel differently between us and machines once we understand why humans have that trait.

That's why homosexuals don't exist.

[Vannak]

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Luke_DeVari

Vannak

I honestly don't see why people are so distrustful of machine AI. Putting an AI in charge of something like, say, the energy grid, is not much different from electing public figures. We trust other people to be put in charge of vast power and influence.


People think, for some reason, that an intelligence not evolved from the need to reproduce and survive, has any reason to differentiate machines and humans. Xenophobia is a biological trait that comes from reproduction with the same species. There's no reason to think a machine would ever feel any more or less "Threatened" by humans than machines.

I had never before thought about how Xenophobia plays an important role in the social tension against machines. Humans generally do have a natural tendency to distrust those outside of their own race or culture, which, by the evolutionary perspective in psychology, was an adaptive trait in early man to put one's own people before others for survival's sake. Perhaps a degree of dislike is encouraged by our natural tendency for self-preference, except in this case, it's a matter of caring about one's own species to the point of disdain for synthetic beings.
On the side of environmental influences on our psychology, an amount contempt for machines has been instilled in many of us from the messages we receive from media, though they are not necessarily messages based in fact or logic.

Very interesting to think about. It seems no matter how you slice it, humans are egocentric by nature, but again by the evolutionary view, that kind of thinking is adaptive for genetic survival.

Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene describes why this emerges: That most human behavior such as xenophobia, altruism, and selfishness are all our genes doing, trying to ensure that they survive over other species genes. The whole point of his book is more or less that we're machines made by our genes. The point of us isn't to survive, but to make sure our genes survive. This is why we're xenophobic and view other species as lower: they don't have our genes. The less something is genetically like us the more likely we're not not give a s**t about it's well being.

Now a machine, not having to had going through the millions of years of evolution, would not need to have this pressure, as it has no genes to pass on. We have no reason to think a machine would feel differently between us and machines once we understand why humans have that trait.

That's why homosexuals don't exist.

That makes no sense

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Luke_DeVari

Vannak

I honestly don't see why people are so distrustful of machine AI. Putting an AI in charge of something like, say, the energy grid, is not much different from electing public figures. We trust other people to be put in charge of vast power and influence.


People think, for some reason, that an intelligence not evolved from the need to reproduce and survive, has any reason to differentiate machines and humans. Xenophobia is a biological trait that comes from reproduction with the same species. There's no reason to think a machine would ever feel any more or less "Threatened" by humans than machines.

I had never before thought about how Xenophobia plays an important role in the social tension against machines. Humans generally do have a natural tendency to distrust those outside of their own race or culture, which, by the evolutionary perspective in psychology, was an adaptive trait in early man to put one's own people before others for survival's sake. Perhaps a degree of dislike is encouraged by our natural tendency for self-preference, except in this case, it's a matter of caring about one's own species to the point of disdain for synthetic beings.
On the side of environmental influences on our psychology, an amount contempt for machines has been instilled in many of us from the messages we receive from media, though they are not necessarily messages based in fact or logic.

Very interesting to think about. It seems no matter how you slice it, humans are egocentric by nature, but again by the evolutionary view, that kind of thinking is adaptive for genetic survival.

Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene describes why this emerges: That most human behavior such as xenophobia, altruism, and selfishness are all our genes doing, trying to ensure that they survive over other species genes. The whole point of his book is more or less that we're machines made by our genes. The point of us isn't to survive, but to make sure our genes survive. This is why we're xenophobic and view other species as lower: they don't have our genes. The less something is genetically like us the more likely we're not not give a s**t about it's well being.

Now a machine, not having to had going through the millions of years of evolution, would not need to have this pressure, as it has no genes to pass on. We have no reason to think a machine would feel differently between us and machines once we understand why humans have that trait.

That's why homosexuals don't exist.

That makes no sense

I mean, hey, we're all machines based on trying to spread our seed right?

There must be no logical reason for homosexuality to exist under this preface- I guess that proves it doesn't exist and people don't think about things or have crazy ideas outside the effects of genetics and spreading their seed.

[Vannak]

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Luke_DeVari

Vannak

I honestly don't see why people are so distrustful of machine AI. Putting an AI in charge of something like, say, the energy grid, is not much different from electing public figures. We trust other people to be put in charge of vast power and influence.


People think, for some reason, that an intelligence not evolved from the need to reproduce and survive, has any reason to differentiate machines and humans. Xenophobia is a biological trait that comes from reproduction with the same species. There's no reason to think a machine would ever feel any more or less "Threatened" by humans than machines.

I had never before thought about how Xenophobia plays an important role in the social tension against machines. Humans generally do have a natural tendency to distrust those outside of their own race or culture, which, by the evolutionary perspective in psychology, was an adaptive trait in early man to put one's own people before others for survival's sake. Perhaps a degree of dislike is encouraged by our natural tendency for self-preference, except in this case, it's a matter of caring about one's own species to the point of disdain for synthetic beings.
On the side of environmental influences on our psychology, an amount contempt for machines has been instilled in many of us from the messages we receive from media, though they are not necessarily messages based in fact or logic.

Very interesting to think about. It seems no matter how you slice it, humans are egocentric by nature, but again by the evolutionary view, that kind of thinking is adaptive for genetic survival.

Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene describes why this emerges: That most human behavior such as xenophobia, altruism, and selfishness are all our genes doing, trying to ensure that they survive over other species genes. The whole point of his book is more or less that we're machines made by our genes. The point of us isn't to survive, but to make sure our genes survive. This is why we're xenophobic and view other species as lower: they don't have our genes. The less something is genetically like us the more likely we're not not give a s**t about it's well being.

Now a machine, not having to had going through the millions of years of evolution, would not need to have this pressure, as it has no genes to pass on. We have no reason to think a machine would feel differently between us and machines once we understand why humans have that trait.

That's why homosexuals don't exist.

That makes no sense

I mean, hey, we're all machines based on trying to spread our seed right?

There must be no logical reason for homosexuality to exist under this preface- I guess that proves it doesn't exist and people don't think about things or have crazy ideas outside the effects of genetics and spreading their seed.

First of all, the selfish gene hypothesis doesn't say all biological traits are about genes. Secondly, evolution proves genetic diseases don't exist, right?
And third, selfish gene hypothesis says the opposite of what you just said, it's not about individuals trying to spread their genes, it's about the continuation of human genes. I repeat, it is not about individuals with specific genes, it's about the continuation of human genes, not an individual genes. Lets say there's a human gene called H. That gene tries to survive, not individual copies of gene H.
Fourth, Homosexuality only has certain genetic markers, and we're pretty sure there is no gay gene. From what I know on the topic, it has more to do with the mother and her immune response to each fetus while it's being developed.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene describes why this emerges: That most human behavior such as xenophobia, altruism, and selfishness are all our genes doing, trying to ensure that they survive over other species genes. The whole point of his book is more or less that we're machines made by our genes. The point of us isn't to survive, but to make sure our genes survive. This is why we're xenophobic and view other species as lower: they don't have our genes. The less something is genetically like us the more likely we're not not give a s**t about it's well being.

Now a machine, not having to had going through the millions of years of evolution, would not need to have this pressure, as it has no genes to pass on. We have no reason to think a machine would feel differently between us and machines once we understand why humans have that trait.

That's why homosexuals don't exist.

That makes no sense

I mean, hey, we're all machines based on trying to spread our seed right?

There must be no logical reason for homosexuality to exist under this preface- I guess that proves it doesn't exist and people don't think about things or have crazy ideas outside the effects of genetics and spreading their seed.

First of all, the selfish gene hypothesis doesn't say all biological traits are about genes. Secondly, evolution proves genetic diseases don't exist, right?
And third, selfish gene hypothesis says the opposite of what you just said, it's not about individuals trying to spread their genes, it's about the continuation of human genes. I repeat, it is not about individuals with specific genes, it's about the continuation of human genes, not an individual genes. Lets say there's a human gene called H. That gene tries to survive, not individual copies of gene H.
Fourth, Homosexuality only has certain genetic markers, and we're pretty sure there is no gay gene. From what I know on the topic, it has more to do with the mother and her immune response to each fetus while it's being developed.

Exactly, it has nothing to do with genes.

People make decisions based on random matters, living life, some random tick, whatever, and not necessarily on their genes.


It doesn't control them completely and never has.

This is just one example of it.

[Vannak]

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene describes why this emerges: That most human behavior such as xenophobia, altruism, and selfishness are all our genes doing, trying to ensure that they survive over other species genes. The whole point of his book is more or less that we're machines made by our genes. The point of us isn't to survive, but to make sure our genes survive. This is why we're xenophobic and view other species as lower: they don't have our genes. The less something is genetically like us the more likely we're not not give a s**t about it's well being.

Now a machine, not having to had going through the millions of years of evolution, would not need to have this pressure, as it has no genes to pass on. We have no reason to think a machine would feel differently between us and machines once we understand why humans have that trait.

That's why homosexuals don't exist.

That makes no sense

I mean, hey, we're all machines based on trying to spread our seed right?

There must be no logical reason for homosexuality to exist under this preface- I guess that proves it doesn't exist and people don't think about things or have crazy ideas outside the effects of genetics and spreading their seed.

First of all, the selfish gene hypothesis doesn't say all biological traits are about genes. Secondly, evolution proves genetic diseases don't exist, right?
And third, selfish gene hypothesis says the opposite of what you just said, it's not about individuals trying to spread their genes, it's about the continuation of human genes. I repeat, it is not about individuals with specific genes, it's about the continuation of human genes, not an individual genes. Lets say there's a human gene called H. That gene tries to survive, not individual copies of gene H.
Fourth, Homosexuality only has certain genetic markers, and we're pretty sure there is no gay gene. From what I know on the topic, it has more to do with the mother and her immune response to each fetus while it's being developed.

Exactly, it has nothing to do with genes.

People make decisions based on random matters, living life, some random tick, whatever, and not necessarily on their genes.


It doesn't control them completely and never has.

This is just one example of it.

Xenophobia isn't homosexuality, though.

I don't know a single species of animal that doesn't know the difference between its own species and others. This is a hugely important thing to understand if we're going to wonder if AI's will be xenophobic and potentially hostile towards humans if let to develop unchecked.

And my conclusion is that Xenophobia is a psychological extension of the ability and pressure on species to differentiate between ones own species and other forms of life. My assertion is that with out that foundation, xenophobia has no reason or ability to form by accident.

So essentially an AI which has never needed to differentiate between its own "Type" and others for mating (and thus survival) purposes is really unlikely to develop a fear, hatred, or contempt for other "type" such as humans.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

That makes no sense

I mean, hey, we're all machines based on trying to spread our seed right?

There must be no logical reason for homosexuality to exist under this preface- I guess that proves it doesn't exist and people don't think about things or have crazy ideas outside the effects of genetics and spreading their seed.

First of all, the selfish gene hypothesis doesn't say all biological traits are about genes. Secondly, evolution proves genetic diseases don't exist, right?
And third, selfish gene hypothesis says the opposite of what you just said, it's not about individuals trying to spread their genes, it's about the continuation of human genes. I repeat, it is not about individuals with specific genes, it's about the continuation of human genes, not an individual genes. Lets say there's a human gene called H. That gene tries to survive, not individual copies of gene H.
Fourth, Homosexuality only has certain genetic markers, and we're pretty sure there is no gay gene. From what I know on the topic, it has more to do with the mother and her immune response to each fetus while it's being developed.

Exactly, it has nothing to do with genes.

People make decisions based on random matters, living life, some random tick, whatever, and not necessarily on their genes.


It doesn't control them completely and never has.

This is just one example of it.

Xenophobia isn't homosexuality, though.

I don't know a single species of animal that doesn't know the difference between its own species and others. This is a hugely important thing to understand if we're going to wonder if AI's will be xenophobic and potentially hostile towards humans if let to develop unchecked.

And my conclusion is that Xenophobia is a psychological extension of the ability and pressure on species to differentiate between ones own species and other forms of life. My assertion is that with out that foundation, xenophobia has no reason or ability to form by accident.

So essentially an AI which has never needed to differentiate between its own "Type" and others for mating (and thus survival) purposes is really unlikely to develop a fear, hatred, or contempt for other "type" such as humans.

Sentient machines may develop a hatred of humans on the basis of how they're treated. If we treat them like slaves but give them the ability to feel bad about it how could they not hate it?

By giving them free will and then stripping it away we'd be behaving evily. Sense the machines wouldn't have rights and other things they'd resent us and attempt to thawrt their overlords, essentially their only exposure of whom had been enslavement even if there were individuals who felt it was bad.


Or it may just be random. Giving a machine a consciousness and the ability to have intent means that it could do anything.

They may be charged with our protection for instance, but see us as they greatest harm to each other- with no emotions of feelings themselves it would simply be illogical to let us have freedoms and do what we please, a much more rigorous basic lifestyle with no entertainment, no choices would seem appropriate. If they had a self survival based programming they may see us as a threat and respond accordingly- there are a million scenarios where they may come to hate us.


One thing I know for sure is that humans are imperfect. Our imperfections imparted onto machines and programming would result in the possibility of them making mistakes, even if they aren't "evil" or resent us per say- mistakes such as not killing another human, mistakes such as not being nice, mistakes such as serving us but not in the way we desire etc.

It's best not to give them the chance to make mistakes, or things we'd see as bad. We give input, we get an output, that's all. There's no reason to hook up computers to our brain and download information, either. Maybe control a mouse or keyboard with our brain, maybe be able to give outputs such as memories even, but no reason to let something come in and alter them. A machine that can decide what it wants to do is silly. The extent of a machine's programming and mechanical capacity should be the extent of what it can work- nothing more than a calculator and performer, letting a robot "think" is useless. A car can drive without needing to be able to to think, so can a screwdriver. If a car had laser designated impact sensors it could avoid other cars or buildings or whatnot, but it would not be sentient, just a complex AI, in that way we don't need sentience to get things done and it would only be setting ourselves for potential failure we'd have no control over.

[dxnobodyx]

Luke_DeVari

DXnobodyX

Yes because ppl go for what they want and rarely what they need.

So you want someone to lie to you about the future and have no choice in their commitment to you?

A far healthier relationship is if someone empowers you to face the next day not decieve you, its a true connection when someone stays by your side when they don't have to and communication goes both ways. Your just after something you can control because you can not accept that the world revolves around a magnetic core instead of yourself.

As Layra-chan said before its disgusting.

I wish to state explicitly clearly that I am not personally relying on social robots for a sense of emotional fulfillment. I am saying that I support the idea, but that doesn't mean I see droids as my only option of having any social connection, because that would be delusional. On that point, there is nothing stopping a person with a social robot from having human connections. I don't see how it would directly entail a disconnect from the rest of society, (though the tendency for reclusiveness certainly would increase for some people).

Would loving a robot be deception, or a kind of social relation we are simply unfamiliar with as a culture? By the way, the point of having a social robot is to have a sense of loyalty and feeling of communication that goes both ways. I don't see how a droid doesn't fit those criteria. I'm asking what does a human relationship have that cannot be replicated by a machine? (for the purposes of this argument, I am referring to social and emotional functions, not biological ones)

By the way, it is generally frowned upon to make personal attacks in an argument, so I ask you to refrain from doing so, especially on a subject where we are discussing opinions. Remember that this is a discussion of subjective morality, and different people will have their own opinions. It is not conducive to a discussion to start throwing out value judgments on another's character for holding a belief that does not entail direct harm to anyone's well-being. Unless you can directly say one's belief has a harmful effect on others with an evidence-based claim, than you cannot say it's bad.
In your case against me, you assume I have a mindset of egocentricity, quite wrongly, I might add. All humans have a natural need for some degree of control over their lives. Whilst I admit to having that need, that does not mean that I hold an unhealthy level of it.

I respect your feelings of disgust, but I see no logical base for the claim because there is no harm involved. On the contrary, I find it confusing for one to feel disgust at what makes another person happy when the genesis of that joy is independent from injury.

My disgust is not with you, it is with why you want an AI and the lack of rights you attribute to something that for all intents and purposes is the same as us.

[Luke_DeVari]

Suicidesoldier#1

People make decisions based on random matters, living life, some random tick, whatever, and not necessarily on their genes.

It doesn't control them completely and never has.

I'm only going to respond to this one point because you've said a number of things in this discussion that you have obviously not researched and lack understanding of.

Our genetic makeup outlines the possibilities for our development; one is not necessarily born a genius because we need environmental stimulation and intellectual engagement or else even a healthy child can become retarded. This has to do with the process of forming dendrite connections, which is a capacity set to a degree by genes, but activated by environmental interactions.
Genes do completely control us in the sense that our potential range of development is limited by our biological makeup.

Appreciate this response, because you are saying increasingly ignorant things in light of our explanations, which you are not even responding to as you continue on your own illogical tangent. You provide no support for your claims except for baseless rationalizations, ignoring scientific research, ignoring our words of explanation as well. Thus, your current manner of speaking is definitively ignorant upon multiple points.
I strongly suggest you adjust your methods of reasoning.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Luke_DeVari

Suicidesoldier#1

People make decisions based on random matters, living life, some random tick, whatever, and not necessarily on their genes.

It doesn't control them completely and never has.

I'm only going to respond to this one point because you've said a number of things in this discussion that you have obviously not researched and lack understanding of.

Our genetic makeup outlines the possibilities for our development; one is not necessarily born a genius because we need environmental stimulation and intellectual engagement or else even a healthy child can become retarded. This has to do with the process of forming dendrite connections, which is a capacity set to a degree by genes, but activated by environmental interactions.
Genes do completely control us in the sense that our potential range of development is limited by our biological makeup.

Appreciate this response, because you are saying increasingly ignorant things in light of our explanations, which you are not even responding to as you continue on your own illogical tangent. You provide no support for your claims except for baseless rationalizations, ignoring scientific research, ignoring our words of explanation as well. Thus, your current manner of speaking is definitively ignorant upon multiple points.
I strongly suggest you adjust your methods of reasoning.

Genes determine potential to some degree. We obviously are not sea sponges or star fish.

But with a properly functioning human brain there really is no limit to how smart we can be. Our only limit is sensory input which may change in the future with better technology or pills or whatever.


But that doesn't determine our decisions, our choices, what we want to do in any case. It seems to have little to do with genes.

Sure basic concepts of morality and eating and sleeping but language is never a part of it, nor is walking, nor is driving a car, no is wearing pants. We do so much that genetics has nothing to do with.


And why do we do it? Just cause, we feel like it.

That's the issue with consciousness and sentience, we make decisions for arbitrary reasons. There's no reason to expect that to be a good thing in a machine designed to respond back to you with prepogrammed responses or cook toast or crunch numbers or even assemble a car, it's absolutely silly.

[Luke_DeVari]

DXnobodyX

My disgust is not with you, it is with why you want an AI and the lack of rights you attribute to something that for all intents and purposes is the same as us.

Firstly, people identify their values and perspectives as a part of themselves. I apologize for having made the mistake of assuming you were attacking me when it was a disagreement with my perspective. I took that too personally.

Secondly, I have explained multiple times how I see AI developing to have a social intelligence from responding to social cues, creating an indirect sense of emotion and awareness through empathy.
On the other hand, I would be eager to hear how droids would be able to have personal emotions, as I cannot think of any.

There are other ways by which droids are not the same as humans:
Perhaps the most important is that they do not have emotions, meaning they cannot feel anger, pain, impatience, or any of the like. This implies that their motivations guiding their decisions are fundamentally different, as they won't do things like yell at you in frustration. I find it to be of paramount importance to control these motivations as to avoid harm. Objective prevention of harm is more important than adjusting programming to appease subjective values that could cause the harm that we're trying to prevent in the first place. You see this problem of potential danger that comes up from unregulated emotions? Droids won't magically know right from wrong unless we tell them what's wrong, and better yet, put measures in place to prevent the possibility of committing wrongs.

They do not feel fatigue, as they have no need to eat or sleep like us, since they have batteries or some other electronic power source
They do not feel stressed about working long hours
They do not feel alone if you leave them standing in a corner of a closet for a few days
They do not feel any contempt when you act cruel towards them
They do not feel they are enslaved

Given that intelligent droids never had free will to begin with, we're not taking it away from them. There is no victim in limiting their ability to thought, and only terrible potential for harm and confusion would come from going through the great struggle to give droids human-like free will.
How is this slavery and how is it not justified to control the direction of their thoughts and "desires," so to speak?
Or are you disgusted with the idea of humans' quality of life improving? Is it that the droids appear too human? I've already demonstrated several differences between us and AI.
What if it was just a black box that typed out its thoughts; how would you feel about giving it rights then?