In the described case robots are indistinguishable from biorobots. Does type of hardware make any difference for ethic problems?

Btw, the original robots [0] from which the name originates were made of flesh and blood, not mechanical parts.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R.

From the wikipedia link:

> In Czech, robota means forced labour of the kind that serfs had to perform on their masters' lands and is derived from rab, meaning "slave".

Well, 'robota' means 'labour' (see German 'Arbeit', it's the same word), 'rab' (slave) is just one of derivatives from it. Another is 'rebenok' (child, baby), so it's not such a sinister as it may seem from this article.

Source: I'm Slavic. )

I think if something is made of electronics and material parts the ethics are different. It's be like asking if someone bashing their motorcycle is the same as someone bashing their horse.

And, while an interesting footnote for the English word robot, that in Slavic languages whence it's deriven it can refer to worker/servant/serf/slave is beside the point.

But the difference is in reaction. We can emphasize with the horse because - (A) It can show that it's suffering. (B) You can't repair the horse perfectly yet if the damage is beyond certain level. (C) Other reasons for why we consider it living and unique.

If motorcycle is able to fullfil all of them, then what.

Gotta ask what makes machine a machine.

In TV show Westworld, early robots are mechanical, but later replaced by biological ones. Does it make torturing early models any less or more bad, considering that they behave the same?

It’s probably like eating animals. At one point there was little thought about it in terms of ethics for most civilizations, but then gradually things become fuzzy.

Although that being said, it’s interesting that definitions have such a huge impact. For example you can be an extreme vegan but also be okay with abortion (note I’m not anti abortion rights) just pointing out how a definition can affect human ethics among people who are very cautious about affecting living things.

That is arguable. People pay higher price for human made products even if there are better automated counterparts at a cheaper price.

There's already a trend of putting AI and human produced product next to each other with later being highly priced emotionally manipulating some people into buying for the humane touch while others can go for cheaper ones.

Although, I am not sure about limitation androids will face like natural aging, growth, self healing, evolution? Some of that may be cost prohibitive compared to a biological piece of ball.

Or they might fear the robotic take-over and prefer genetically engineered workers.

In any case, DNA looks like a cryptographic code to me. It grew and grew for millions of years and cracking that code without side effects seems similar to cracking a strong cryptographic code. That being said I actually don’t possess any knowledge in this area, perhaps someone more knowledgable would chime-in on how close we are to genetically engineer organisms with well predictable side effects.

> People will opt for the dependable, low maintenance ethics-free option.

I do not agree. Why do people still go to see live bands, when listening to a recording is orders of magnitude cheaper, and generally gives you better sound to boot?