Raw LLM Responses

​@psychicspy A lot of people, mainly those subjected to these tasks, would clearly say yes. For example, as soon as the 19th century, Marx's theory of alienation goes as far as saying that performing mindless repetitive tasks can strip us from our humanity. The important distinction I was trying to make resides not in the complexity of the task or the operations required to perform it. Keeping balance and moving forward is not easy and requires internal processing. But it's not a decision; it is an objective that the creator of the machine purposefully implemented into its creation. There are proteins in our DNA performing robot-like tasks, like dynein and kinesin. They are not alive, yet they walk and perform highly complex tasks, without any shred of consciousness. I don't think the limit between the two is clear-cut and there is a blurry frontier to cross : for example, the decision-making algorithm of self-driving cars or stock market programs will take decisions and make mistakes. Whilst both of them perform highly complex tasks based on numerous variables, they aren't actually responsible in the tort law sense of the word. While my point was only about the fact that we already live in a "robot world" making life and death decisions without actually knowing it, I expanded into the question of consciousness and would these robot be blamable for such decisions, considering that their decisions aren't - and will likely not be in current technology - decisions in the legal sense of the word. Roger Penrose went further and said that consciousness is not - and will not be - the process of binary computation. I still do believe that it could potentially happen, seeing how technology and quantum computing evolves.