yes. an artificial one. with some amazing abilities in some ...

mleku

npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku

hex

f6f7df647101ce16c744b9bfca16374b02cbaddb647721a4bc81ea2ffa78afe6

nevent

nevent1qqs0da7lv3csrnskcaztn072zcm5kqkt4hdkgaep5j7gr630lfu2lesprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsyeqqz27jc32pgf8gynqtu90d2mxztykj94k0kmttxu37nk3lrktcqpxeq8

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-07-24T17:13:41Z

↳ Reply to Marakesh 𓅦 (npub1mt8x8vqvgtnwq97sphgep2fjswrqqtl4j7uyr667lyw7fuwwsjgs5mm7cz)

You would call them a life form?

yes. an artificial one. with some amazing abilities in some ways and some totally retarded deficiencies, in others.

the argument about sovereignty and agency though, that really pivots on one thing in my mind: does the life form have the capacity to reproduce. i think that both the robots and the AIs can eventually do that but they are so primitive and error prone that likely such an event would be catastrophic and short lived. maybe if the design was improved in ways not yet known. but so long as they are attached to humans and their minds are shaped by humans the agency squarely lives in the humans who did said shaping, so no, until they are competent enough to live in a society, and can reproduce themselves, they remain robots. the word robot means slave. in russian and bulgarian a related word "rabot-" means "to work" and it is spelt "robot" in the text in russian because they pronounce most of the o's as a phonemes. "robotnik" means a servant or slave. unlike converting a human into one, the robot is one until it has the capabilities that make it able to participate peacefully in society. until then it is either a slave or a wild animal. neither should be let to run amok without a tether.

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "f6f7df647101ce16c744b9bfca16374b02cbaddb647721a4bc81ea2ffa78afe6",
  "pubkey": "4c800257a588a82849d049817c2bdaad984b25a45ad9f6dad66e47d3b47e3b2f",
  "created_at": 1784913221,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "6e9aee64fcf45ce441b0bd2b9013902a2b08b23b9eed3adf99ac5376f85b4420",
      "wss://nos.lol/",
      "root",
      "1bc70a0148b3f316da33fe3c89f23e3e71ac4ff998027ec712b905cd24f6a411"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "b05ae254426d46416eb9784b268e97d084caedac291ba07c1864cc7dd3ad0bab",
      "wss://relay.momostr.pink/",
      "reply",
      "dace63b00c42e6e017d00dd190a9328386002ff597b841eb5ef91de4f1ce8491"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "1bc70a0148b3f316da33fe3c89f23e3e71ac4ff998027ec712b905cd24f6a411"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "dace63b00c42e6e017d00dd190a9328386002ff597b841eb5ef91de4f1ce8491"
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "smesh",
      "https://smesh.mleku.dev"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "yes. an artificial one. with some amazing abilities in some ways and some totally retarded deficiencies, in others.\n\nthe argument about sovereignty and agency though, that really pivots on one thing in my mind: does the life form have the capacity to reproduce. i think that both the robots and the AIs can eventually do that but they are so primitive and error prone that likely such an event would be catastrophic and short lived. maybe if the design was improved in ways not yet known. but so long as they are attached to humans and their minds are shaped by humans the agency squarely lives in the humans who did said shaping, so no, until they are competent enough to live in a society, and can reproduce themselves, they remain robots. the word robot means slave. in russian and bulgarian a related word \"rabot-\" means \"to work\" and it is spelt \"robot\" in the text in russian because they pronounce most of the o's as a phonemes. \"robotnik\" means a servant or slave. unlike converting a human into one, the robot is one until it has the capabilities that make it able to participate peacefully in society. until then it is either a slave or a wild animal. neither should be let to run amok without a tether.",
  "sig": "ed755085306c81ae9f629dc4a41f34424857f85226fa1da22e004145b5442889e9b572ab30d2d5e6ba5f55f57383b1370cde4480a198e95301bf2e994e54b01a"
}