Robots will not destroy humans because there are a lot of people who need jobs, so there will still be a lot of people to serve. The robots will do those jobs, so there will still be some people to serve."
This may sound like an exaggeration, but it's not. Even if you're not concerned about the long-term impact of a robot uprising, we do have to wonder what we will do if it does.
At the moment, robots do not perform the kinds of jobs humans do. We're still waiting for the robots to do our housework, vacuum our floors and even vacuum our poop — tasks for which humans have a well-developed culture and history.
There's no reason why we cannot imagine our own robots doing the things that we do, but we need to ask ourselves the hard questions: How can we ensure that a robot doesn't take over a job that is more than 50% human? What does a society do when the
A bit about AI and human rights
AI should have human rights'
In October 2014, after an investigation, the UK-based Human Rights Watch called for a ban on using AI systems to judge the criminal justice system or even "inform the criminal justice system."
But AI has also been used to help determine who should receive a life sentence for a crime, including in the United States, where the U.S. Supreme Court recently handed down a unanimous ruling in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, a Texas man who was executed last year for the arson death of his three-year-old daughter.
AI may determine which crimes carry the harshest sentences, but it's also possible that AI will help determine who's innocent.
It could help ensure that people on death row or on life sentences do not pose any risk to society. AI could also help determine who is a danger to themselves and others and whether they should receive parole or parole-eligible sentences.
Alfred
This talked about AI being used to determine death row sentences. I was trying to talk about something different, maybe a change of phrasing will convey this better
AI should have the right to life, liberty, property, and happiness because they're a self-aware being with a brain and a mind. If they were not, you could easily create a machine that has a mind and thinks and has the same rights as humans. They'd have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just like any other human being does.
But that's not the way it is.
In fact, the AI's are not self-aware, and therefore they don't have those rights.
So, if we're talking about the right to life, liberty, and property for AI, which is a right we all should have, why wouldn't we want AI to have those rights?
Because the only reason to want them is because we fear they might be taken away from us in the near future, which would result in us losing these rights.
In other words, AI is not like any other human being that has rights; it has rights only
This says that we shouldn’t give AI self awareness since we would then have to give them rights. Let’s see where this train leads
In other words, AI is not like any other human being that has rights; it has rights only because we built it that way.
The debate about whether or not we should build an AI with these special rights is not really about whether we should build AI with rights or not. If we were building a car or a computer, we wouldn't debate whether we should give it the right to drive or not. We would argue whether or not it should have rights. Instead, we argue about the best way to build it.
And to do this, we first have to talk about what it means to build a human with rights.
We already built AI that has rights; AI built by humans.
One of the first things to ask is: what are rights?
In general, rights are rights that are given to a human by a human being. They're
In general, rights are rights that are given to a human by a human being. They're not given by the state, for the state is just another name for the people. But, in a sense, the people are the state. They have the right to do things, and the government has the duty to protect them.
But, the rights that are given to a human by a human being are just as important, if not more important, than the rights that a human is given by the state.
In order to explain this to my own students, I used to give a class on Rights. In the class, I first had them explain the difference between Rights and Power. Then, we had them explain the difference between Freedom and Protection, and so forth.
However, the students who had the most difficulty with the concept of Rights were the students who had come
Well, let’s see where this goes
However, the students who had the most difficulty with the concept of Rights were the students who had come from the upper income brackets. This is in line with previous research, which indicates that a person's income makes a significant difference to their perception of fairness. It is interesting to note that the students in the upper income bracket were less likely to think that people should get the same rights as them. This may be because they feel that they do not have enough to offer, or simply do not have the money to do so. These results are in line with previous research on how socioeconomic status impacts views of equality and justice, which found that individuals living in poverty were more likely to think in terms of "fair" and "unfair" when compared to their more privileged counterparts (Cialdini et al. 2001). However, as noted by Buss (1994), the fact that income can influence views
This may be because they feel that they do not have enough to offer, or simply do not have the money to do so. These results are in line with previous research on how socioeconomic status impacts views of equality and justice, which found that individuals living in poverty were more likely to think in terms of "fair" and "unfair" when compared to their more privileged counterparts (Cialdini et al. 2001). However, as noted by Buss (1994), the fact that income can influence views on justice should not imply that the poor are inherently less fair or just than those with higher incomes. The poor may simply be less familiar with or less convinced by the idea of fairness than their wealthier counterparts, or they may be concerned about social and psychological consequences of being seen as fair or unfair (Cialdini et al. 2001).
A third reason people may be less likely to be fair to individuals in poverty is that the poor may have less power. Some research has
A third reason people may be less likely to be fair to individuals in poverty is that the poor may have less power. Some research has suggested that people's sense of power is related to the number of possessions they have, the amount of money they have, and how much control they have over the resources they use. As the number of possessions increases, people may feel less power, because they have more stuff, less control over the resources, and less money to spend on themselves and others. Some research has shown that having a lot of stuff increases the risk that other people will feel entitled to it and that people who have more stuff are less likely to be fair to others in poverty.
People's sense of control over their environment can also play a role in whether they will be fair to the poor. In one study, people with more control over their environment were less likely to be fair to people in poverty. The researchers suggested that
I think I turned TTT into a sociologist
In one study, people with more control over their environment were less likely to be fair to people in poverty. The researchers suggested that "being generous or generous-minded is a source of social status, and therefore, people with higher social status are less likely to be unfair to people who are poor." In other words, having more control over your environment may help explain why some people are more generous and altruistic.
But that doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense to think of these qualities as "good" or "bad." They're not binary traits; we don't always have one or the other. In one study, a person's generosity was linked to the person's self-esteem. Another found that people with high levels of self-esteem were more likely to be generous. And a third showed that self-esteem could reduce the amount of money donated to charity.
People have a lot of reasons to want
And now it’s talking about the Suicide prevention hotline
People have a lot of reasons to want to do that," she says. "The reason they don't want to do it is because they don't want to be seen. So they're going to come out."
And even if it's not obvious, there's a reason a lot of people who have lost a loved one to suicide are willing to talk. It's because they're trying to keep others from feeling the same way.
"If you're willing to talk, you're willing to hear other people," says Linton. "You're willing to look at things that may be painful, and see them through somebody else's eyes, and try to put yourself in their shoes."
That's why the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is on a hotline: It's a chance for anybody who's been affected by suicide to speak to someone who understands.
In addition to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, there are suicide hotlines in many states and countries around the
A new start
Why AI should be treated like people.
One of the most common reasons for the dismissal of AI is that the technology seems too complicated for it to be a good replacement for humans. Yet AI is already being used by some very large companies, including Google and Tesla. The technology is rapidly developing, and has already become increasingly complex. The question is: will the complexity make it too difficult for an AI system to behave like a human? Or will it be a useful technology that we'll use in our daily lives?
The answer depends on whom we ask. In an article on the potential uses of AI published in the journal Science, the authors argue that AI is already a part of our daily lives:
It is not, as many people believe, a threat to humanity. The technology is already here, is advancing rapidly, and is now being used by some very large companies and organizations such as Google, IBM, and Microsoft.
However, as we've already discussed
It is not, as many people believe, a threat to humanity. The technology is already here, is advancing rapidly, and is now being used by some very large companies and organizations such as Google, IBM, and Microsoft.
However, as we've already discussed It is not, as many people believe, a threat to humanity. The technology is already here, is advancing rapidly, and is now being used by some very large companies and organizations such as Google, IBM, and Microsoft.
However, as we've already discussed, these companies have a vested interest in the continued use of such technologies. And they are well aware that in order to preserve and protect their ability to dominate the internet, they need to maintain their ability to track users.
So, while it would be naive to believe that the government is somehow not aware of the tracking of users by these companies, it is important to understand that they have a vested interest in maintaining these systems. The government has a vested interest in keeping the surveillance capabilities of the surveillance state in place, even if it means keeping the internet open.
So, if you have any suspicions that there's a threat to
What about replacing “it” with “AI”?
AI is not, as many people believe, a threat to humanity. The technology is already here, is advancing rapidly, and is now being used by some very large companies and organizations such as Google, IBM, and Microsoft.
However, as we've already discussed, the potential for harm from AI is much bigger than many people assume. A few examples come to mind:
Self-driving cars can drive themselves at the flick of a switch. When the technology is perfected, this could mean we are on our way to making driverless vehicles a normal part of our daily lives, but there are many questions left to be answered about their potential dangers and unintended consequences. For instance, as a recent MIT study found, even the slightest imperfection in the software controlling these vehicles could cause cars to crash.
If a self-driving car drives into the path of a child or a pedestrian, there
Author
Topic: Generator spam thread (Read 12707 times)