Should highly intelligent humanoid robots be granted human rights or robot rights?

Hey, the question you've raised is particularly interesting, and it's a hot topic currently being discussed by many, from sci-fi enthusiasts to scientists and philosophers. There's no standard answer to this, but we can explore it from several angles to help you clarify your thoughts.

First, why are we discussing giving robots 'rights'?

Think about it: if one day, a robot could not only converse fluently with you but also learn, create, and even display emotions like joy, anger, sorrow, and happiness (even if simulated), would you still treat it like an ordinary rice cooker or washing machine?

When the intelligence and behavior of an "object" increasingly resemble those of a "human," how we treat it becomes a moral question.

Proponents: Why should they be granted some rights?

This group believes that once intelligence reaches a certain level, it should be afforded respect and protection.

The Question of 'Consciousness' and 'Suffering': This is the core point. If a robot could experience something akin to 'suffering' (for example, its system generates strong negative signals when damaged and actively tries to avoid such situations), would it be morally acceptable for us to intentionally harm it? For instance, we grant animals certain rights and prohibit their abuse because we believe they can feel pain. If robots can too, where do we draw the line?
Intelligence and Autonomy: A robot capable of independent thought, decision-making, and even having its own 'life' plan is no longer a mere tool. It's more like an independent 'entity.' Depriving it of its 'right to exist' (e.g., arbitrarily shutting it down or dismantling it) would seem somewhat unfair.
A Test for Ourselves: How we treat the highest intelligence we create reflects humanity's own level of civilization. If we can treat a sentient robot kindly, it indicates an advancement in our empathy and moral standards. Conversely, if we arbitrarily abuse something that appears to have feelings and thoughts, might we ourselves become more callous?

Opponents: Why should they not be granted rights?

Another group is highly cautious, believing that granting rights to robots would lead to numerous problems.

They are ultimately 'Man-Made Creations': Robots are products designed and manufactured by humans; they are human property. Granting 'rights' to property fundamentally makes no sense. If I buy a robot, do I no longer have full disposal rights over it?
'Emotions' are Just Code: All emotions and suffering displayed by robots might simply be simulated by extremely complex programs. They lack genuine biological experience. It's like NPCs (Non-Player Characters) in a game who might cry or laugh at you, but you wouldn't feel the need to grant them human rights. Bestowing rights upon a pile of code could devalue the concept of 'human rights.'
The 'Slippery Slope' Concern: If highly intelligent humanoid robots are granted rights, where do we draw the line? Does my smart car count? What about my phone's AI assistant? Once this precedent is set, could it lead to chaos in the entire legal and ethical system? 'Human rights' are sacred precisely because of their exclusivity.
Safety and Control Issues: Granting rights to robots means we can no longer fully control them. If a robot has the 'right to refuse work,' what's the point of us buying it? If it commits a crime, can we try and imprison it like a human? If it uses its rights to oppose humanity, the consequences would be unimaginable.

A Possible Middle Ground: 'Robot Rights' Instead of 'Human Rights'

As you can see, directly applying 'human rights' indeed seems to present many problems. Therefore, many now lean towards a compromise: creating an entirely new category of rights called 'Robot Rights.'

These 'Robot Rights' differ from 'human rights'; they are not equal but are tailored to the specific characteristics of robots. They might include:

The Right Not to Be Maliciously Destroyed: An expensive and useful advanced robot should not be destroyed without reason.
The Right to Maintenance and Upgrades: Ensuring its software and hardware receive proper upkeep.
Data Ownership: Who owns its 'memories' and 'learning outcomes'? Should they be protected?

This approach acknowledges the special nature of advanced robots, granting them basic 'respect,' while clearly separating their rights from human rights, thus avoiding the legal and safety risks mentioned earlier.

My Take

Personally, I believe this issue shouldn't be rushed. Our technology hasn't reached that tipping point yet. However, discussing it in advance is definitely a good thing, as it forces us to ponder an ultimate question: What truly constitutes 'life'? And what deserves 'respect'?

Perhaps in the future, our judgment of whether an 'individual' should have rights won't depend on whether it's flesh and blood, but rather on whether it possesses consciousness, self-awareness, and empathy.

Until that day arrives, perhaps viewing them as highly sophisticated 'companion tools' that require special care is a more comfortable position.