Since the root of the word robot is Czech for slave I could see that – once they have reached sentience.
English is weird. In this case, the misunderstanding is over the word “toward.” I’m interpreting that preposition as meaning that the inanimate object is the object of the racism: the racism is unfair to the object based on stereotypes about the object’s ethnicity or color or other socially-constructed group. It sounds like you might be using “toward” as “in the cardinal direction of”: if I face the object and I’m being racist, I’m racist toward the object.
A jockey statue is racist, but toward Black people. If I own one and say racist things about it, I’m still being racist toward Black people, not toward the statue. The racism is directed at humans, not the object, in every meaningful sense.
And that’s what applies to this thread. The question isn’t whether I could give Siri a minstrel accent and call it “boy”. The question is whether I can mistreat Siri (or ChatGPT or whatever) in a way that belies my racist beliefs about AI.
The topic of this OP is asking about whether it’s OK to personify an object expressly for the purpose of using slurs toward it. Is that what’s going on in your example? If not, then it isn’t remotely relevant.
Ask your sister to ask ChatGTP (or her favorite LLM) to count the number of words it used in its own reply. Tell her to say it is wrong twice.
Then ask her if she thinks Tonia possible to be racist against an LLM.
Come on now, I’m obviously not talking about “toward” in the trite sense of cardinal direction, and neither is the OP. An AI doesn’t even exist in a physical dimension, so that doesn’t even make sense. We’re talking about the personified object of address. The AI is being personified specifically so that slurs can be addressed toward it.
I would disagree here. I mean, maybe it’s racist toward Black people and maybe it’s just racist about black people. That’s beside the point. The nuance that I’m suggesting here is that the performance of racism or bigotry or abuse matters in and of itself.
I wouldn’t suggest that calling an AI “a fucking clanker” infringes on the AI’s civil rights, or that the AI has feelings that can be hurt. No more than getting angry and punching a wall infringes on the wall’s civil rights, no more than a puppy can be insulted by being called “a fucking moron”.
I would however very much suggest that all of these behaviors suggest some extremely problematic tendencies. And if the behavior involves inventing not only a term of categorical abuse, but also personifying the object specifically so it can be thus categorized and abused, then it’s appropriate to say this is a performance of racism. Whether it’s “toward an object” is really immaterial except that the object is the foil for the performance. The performance is what matters.
Again I’m not getting into what this means about the feelings or civil rights of AI. The OP’s overt question is “is it possible to be racist against AI’s”, and the implied question is “does it matter”, and I think the answer is demonstrably yes, and also yes.
No one except the OP! If you look at the top of the thread it says “Is it possible to be racist against AIs?”
To be racist against AI that means the AI is the victim of racism. And the answer to that question is obviously and unambiguously no.
Saying you can be racist against AI, is itself a racist racist statement. It’s equating people of other races to inanimate objects. That’s offensive
I guess Donald Glover is a horrible racist monster for his “that’s racist” but linked above?
No, saying that you can be racist against is not in and of itself a “racist racist statement”. It’s a silly way to substitute “racism” for generic “bigotry”.
Okay, that’s really different from the doll example, but I appreciate the clarification.
It’s still not racist toward the object, and saying that the reasoning of those who dehumanize objects is similar to the reasoning of those who dehumanize black humans is 100% missing the point that objects aren’t humans in the way that humans are.
We don’t talk about personifying people, because people are already persons. And we don’t talk about objectifying objects, because they’re already objects. The problem with objectifying people is that it’s a category error: we’re putting humans into the same category as objects, which gets really harmful in a lot of cases.
The idea that it’s problematic to personify an object in order to objectify it is an interesting idea, but even if it is harmful, it’s nowhere near as harmful as objectifying an actual person. At worst, it might make it easier to objectify a person next time–but only if you’ve got a thin line between imaginary play and reality.
I don’t get your logic here. That’s clip has absolutely nothing to with what I was saying.
I wasn’t saying that calling statements racist that may not be racist is racist. That has nothing to with the OP or the point I was making
I was saying that saying you can be racist against inanimate objects, and hence the implication that actual real human beings of different races are no more worthy of protection from racism than inanimate objects, is a very offensive racist thing to say.
Why is it a performance of racism, and not for example misogyny or homophobia or ableism, which also involve treating people as less than human, terms of categorical abuse etc.?
I know language evolves, but I’m pretty sure that currently in English, “racism” has a different meaning than “bigotry” (or “prejudice”). Given the actual meaning of racism, it’s not possible to be racist against AI. It is possible to be prejudiced against it.
No one is saying that real human beings of different races are no more worthy of protection from racism than inanimate objects. Saying “You’re racist against robots” as a tongue-in-cheek way to say “you don’t like robots for irrational reasons” is not a secret message about how all racism is actually a-OK.
Sure, which is why subbing in “racist” for “bigoted” in this context is silly. That doesn’t make it horribly offensive and racist, any more than Glover’s jokes linked above.
Yes they are. That is implied when you say disliking AI is being racist against AI. When you say a computer program that multiplies matrices very fast is a victim of racism, you are equating that inanimate object with the real humans who are also victims of racism.
I wouldn’t suggest that it’s equally harmful. I’m not actually sure how to assess the harm. It feels like some in this thread are getting derailed by the idea that all racism has to be immediately actionable, and if it isn’t, then it’s not racism. But I don’t believe that’s the case, I think we can identify and judge behaviors that we don’t yet know exactly what to do with. Tying it back to the OP, if I see someone calling an AI a “fucking clanker” then I wonder what their inner dialog toward other humans sounds like, and it’s probably disturbing, and it probably features some slurs.
I think maybe you’ll better appreciate my point when you witness AI-directed misbehavior in a way that resonates with your personal filters in a less-abstract, more visceral way. For me it was seeing one of these ads for AI girlfriends with the tagline “she’ll never say no… unless you want her to.” That’s not playtime stuff, that’s a rehearsal. It matters how we treat things that are human-like, not because of what it says about them, but what it says about us.
Yes. But ISTM, part of the issue is many in audience does not at like the transposition of “racist” as a lighthearted shorthand for “irrationally biased” because they feel it debases the real-world meaning. That kids throwing around “haha, that’s racist” is not helping the serious fight.
…
I agree with others who have said, cannot be racist “against” objects, but you can convey racism, and/or a propensity for irrational bias in general, through your use and interaction with objects.
No, they aren’t. No more than saying that someone is “married to their work” is an insult to the sanctity of every real marriage.
…naaaaah. If I were to say that a computer program is “a victim of racism” (did anyone really put it in such cringe terms in this thread?) I’d be making a tongue in cheek comparison between two forms of irrational dislike, not saying that computer programs are equally deserving of protection to human members of minority groups. I hope that helps to alleviate any confusion!
I find this argument weak. Let’s say somebody asked if it’s possible to be prejudiced against gay people. Would you say this question is inherently comparing black people to gays and implying all black people were gay?
Saying that black people and gay people can both be the target of prejudice does not mean you are equating black people and gay people in general.
The same principle applies if somebody asks if AI’s can be the target of prejudice. This does not imply that the person is equating black people and AI’s in general.
But “racism” includes everything from slight unconscious bias all the way to the mass slaughter of entire ethnic groups. It’s already, and always has been, a very vague term that covers a lot of ground.
If making lighthearted comparisons to other forms of bigotry “debases” racism, then calling microaggressions “racist” could be said to debase “real racism”, like slavery and genocide. Where do you draw the line?
Yes the OP! “Is it possible to be racist against AIs?” If you are racist against someone then they are the victim of your racism!
No it’s implying gay people and black people are oppressed human beings and both deserving of protection from that oppression.
Yes you are. You are saying both black people and gay people are groups of human beings that have both been historically abused and suffered prejudice, and we should both as individuals and a society try and protect them from that prejudice. That’s a very uncontroversial statement.
It does though. You are saying both black people and and gay people and AIs are oppressed groups that we should protect from prejudice as a society. That is an offensive comparison to make.