Even if Robots matter, their health, their decisions, and their "lives" are unimportant

Robots are typically portrayed as slaves or useful resources in science fiction. They always have fewer rights, if any, than the regular homo sapiens with blood and genes. Droids in Star Wars speak, plot, and appear to be distressed about various things. However, they are essentially treated like slaves. Indistinguishable from "genuine" humans, Blade Runner's replicants are coerced into working as slaves. Even an entire episode of Star Trek is devoted to the debate over Data's autonomy. In the world of science fiction, there are no robot rights at all.

This is a result of the emotional distance we are all raised from machines. They stand out and are unique. Nowadays, it's common practise to view AI and computers as mere tools. If they even matter at all, their health, their decisions, and their "lives" are unimportant.

Here are just three examples of suggestions and the responses to them.

1.Robots lack sophisticated, all-encompassing intelligence (sapience). Right now, this is unquestionably true. Although it is excellent at calculating cos(x), your calculator cannot assist you in reading traffic signals. Voice assistants are excellent at providing weather information, but they cannot carry on a discussion. However, there are three issues with this objection. First of all, humans still respect and treat kindly a large number of less intelligent creatures. Second, even though some people lack advanced intelligence, such as infants or people with severe mental disabilities, we nonetheless provide them with rights. Third, this is a barrier we might soon be able to cross, given the rate of AI advancement. Do we truly want to free computers from their chains and treat them on par with people?

2.Robots cannot experience feelings like love or pain (sentience). Not least of all, because we don't fully understand what emotions are; this is a difficult topic. On a physicalist level, it seems conceivable that we could replicate feelings of artificial intelligence if we reduced them to hormones or electrical events in the brain. Will they be awarded legal or moral rights in that situation? The other problem, though, is that there is still a bias in favor of humans in this situation. If a friend cries, you presume they are sad rather than that they are acting depressed.

3.Humans design and program robots. Even when an AI is more evolved and can "learn" from events, it still requires a lot of programming from humans. Something that is so reliant on human initiative cannot be deemed deserving of rights. This has two problems, really. First, even while we don't often refer to humans as being "programmed," it's reasonable to assume that's exactly what our genes do. You are merely the product of your genetic makeup and your parents' and society's influences. Little changes if the words are changed.  Second, why are you denied rights because of dependency? Dogs, young children, and the extremely elderly all depend on humans, but we never treat them cruelly or poorly.