Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it curious that even here there are people who conflate a robot body with an artificial mind. Sure, you can put the computer running the mind that controls the body into the body itself, and there might even be good reasons to given spotty wifi or mobile data, but you don't have to. Also: why embody them in human form at all? https://www.tesla.com/drive https://www.bostondynamics.com/products/spot https://www.…
> I find it curious that even here there are people who conflate a robot body with an artificial mind. You are trying to read things in my comment that are not there. It's _not_ about destroying the actual machine. It's about drawing a line.
Describing an AI walking the streets, or smashing it to pieces, necessarily carries with it the implication that the AI is located within a physical body that moves on legs.
And those words you used are very explicitly about destroying an actual machine.
But if you wish to claim that was merely a linguistic turn of phrase not meant to be taken as an implied literal belief of the location of thought? Ok, but it remains the case that what you propose against a "sufficiently advanced" AI, is somewhere between petty vandalism and a pogrom, depending on questions of if "sufficiently advanced" comes as a package deal with "sentience".
Which is a totally different, and in the latter case much more severe, problem.