Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Of course, all sentient beings deserve this.

Sure, so long as they do not slight me.

I'm rather undecided.

No, robots are machines.

Some people already enjoy too many rights as it is.

A limited set of rights should be granted.

Another option leaning torwards AI rights.

Another option leaning against AI rights.

[Graknorke]

No AI deserving of civil rights should ever be created.

I'm curious as to why you think this.
To avoid cruelty to the AI? Because it isn't possible? Because it isn't useful?

That's a bit of a short post.

[ECrownofFire]

Technically,  plants and bacteria are intelligent. (Wikipedia link)

David Stenhouse has proposed that intelligence be defined as "adaptively variable behaviour during the lifetime of the individual". So when we get a computer that adapts and learns, that is when it is intelligent. But how do you distinguish between simple variable checking and adaptation? That falls more into the realm of qualia, the hard problem of consciousness, the mind-body problem, solipsism, and other philosophical questions.

After all, how do I know if YOU are just following "programming"? I know I'm not because "cogito ergo sum". I think, therefore I am. Or more precisely: I think, therefore I have a consciousness. I may or may not be a brain in a jar, but either way at least I have consciousness.

So my theory is that when something can ask "why do I exist?" (in the philosophical sense), and really mean it, then it is conscious. When it is conscious, it deserves respect as a thinker and a person.

[kaijyuu]

when something can ask "why do I exist?" (in the philosophical sense), and really mean it, then it is conscious.

Bolded part is the weak link in your argument. What would be "really meaning it"?


I'm not sure we'll ever come up with a definition for this stuff that doesn't include some vague clause. Seems it's inescapably "I know it when I see it."

[UltraValican]

No.
They are machines and at the end of the day the have no real choice in what to do with themselves. I may not be a programmer but isn't software limited to if X do Y. All a "sentient AI" would be is just one very big set of "if X do Y".

[kaijyuu]

That's exactly what human beings are.

[Graknorke]

But humans do run on programming.
It's complicated, but it is still a cause and effect structure. Really, really complicated.

Consciousness and rules are not mutually exclusive.

[UltraValican]

That's exactly what human beings are.

In terms of bodily functions yes.
In terms of actual mental ability(You may or may not believe in the concept of souls),, is not. If it was, everyone from a given background would be exactly the same. I would give the AI rights when it proves to be its own self, with the ability to create something. I.E MS-paint "cave paintings"

[kaijyuu]

That's exactly what human beings are.

throw in a bit of randomness, and yes, certainly true. I think for distinct, individual AIs with their own personalities, a quantum computer would be needed.

There's no "randomness" in human behavior, unless you count chaos theory. The only "true" randomness in the universe is quantum randomness, which has pretty much zero effect on how we think. A quantum computer would actually be superior in that sense.

(You may or may not believe in the concept of souls)

Okay, I'll accept dualism as a semi-reasonable position. But we won't be able to empirically prove the existence of souls or whether they're in the robots we build, so it doesn't help in determining what's worthy of moral consideration.

[pisskop]

Human behavior is not predictable.  And when it is it is never garunteed.  We run on predispositions, unlike our hardwired friends in the scenario.

[Graknorke]

Human behavior is not predictable.  And when it is it is never garunteed.  We run on predispositions, unlike our hardwired friends in the scenario.

That's just a huge amount of variables interacting in various ways that produce results that while difficult to predict, are not random. It's just that you would have to know every moment of someone's life, potential genetic effects, and how their brain work these things together to predict it.

That would be a whole lot easier than a computer.

[Wayward Device]

I fear that this is a situation which, when it actually does occur, will only be solvable by the Silicon panthers. My only problem is that in figuring out what to call a militant robot civil right group I looked at the whole thing from a flipped perspective and now I kinda want a hideous totalitarian robot state so I can form the Meat Panthers. 

[pisskop]

Black panthers... idk... I am afraid of a robot revolution.  It would be totaltarian and effecient in practice.

[pisskop]

Best of all no, hesitation, no mind changing, none of that.  We  will always have emps, however.  1920s technology can make it, and I wonder why humanity didn't emp robots in 'Terminator'

[Graknorke]

Black panthers... idk... I am afraid of a robot revolution.  It would be totaltarian and effecient in practice.

I'm not really all too scared of a robot revolution. I mean, we still have a few advantages. Maneuverability (Certainly for a computer large enough to be conscious), adrenaline, and stairs.

As long as we have these things, we can probably reach the power switch.

[Grek]

I'm curious as to why you think this.
To avoid cruelty to the AI? Because it isn't possible? Because it isn't useful?

That's a bit of a short post.

Mostly 3. It's reckless and dangerous to make an artifical person that isn't like the other human persons around it. It would be alien and probably a bit creepy, without serving any useful purpose that couldn't be done just as easily as creating a lesser AI or recruiting a human person. And that's without the difficulties inherent in trying to program general intelligence and a human-acceptable morality to consider.