Because being human is about a lot more than being intelligent, for whatever definition of intelligence you happen to be using.
Roughly half the human population has below-average intelligence, but carries right on being human regardless.
Inventiveness is possibly more of a species marker than raw IQ.
We're not actually that great at being intelligent. But we're very good at using our intelligence to create experiences, invent new things, and pass both to offspring through indirect external memory structures.
>Are humans from 100,000 years ago less human than humans today, even if we have "improved" slightly due to natural selection?
It may be hard to find anyone who accepts that Paranthropus or Homo Erectus were just as human as modern Homo Sapiens.
Homo Erectus died out around 150kybp, which is close enough, I guess.
I think this is a good point. I'm out of my depth talking about evolution, so I don't know when we would stop classifying a species as Homo Erectus and start calling it Homo Sapien. That is probably what would say about these robots: they are a new species. But in a lot of ways, since we are products of a natural world, so are they. Just a little more indirectly.
> I don't know when we would stop classifying a species as Homo Erectus and start calling it Homo Sapien
Unlike other animals where the key factor is morphology (horse -> giraffe) for humans it is the ability to operate as a group and ultimately as a society.
30kya sees hominids adapt to most areas of the world (northern asia, americas) and 10kya civizaltion starts. Although not the traditional biological definition, I would say that's the most salient factor.
Roughly half the human population has below-average intelligence, but carries right on being human regardless.
Inventiveness is possibly more of a species marker than raw IQ.
We're not actually that great at being intelligent. But we're very good at using our intelligence to create experiences, invent new things, and pass both to offspring through indirect external memory structures.
>Are humans from 100,000 years ago less human than humans today, even if we have "improved" slightly due to natural selection?
It may be hard to find anyone who accepts that Paranthropus or Homo Erectus were just as human as modern Homo Sapiens.
Homo Erectus died out around 150kybp, which is close enough, I guess.