Print

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

[Criptfeind]

Okay. First off the part you seem to be linking to in Wikipedia also has a citation needed tag. Also it says nothing about the cutting of the body, only that the muscles do not move.

And if it achieves the same thing what is the point other then morality?

[Leafsnail]

In a dream, your body is paralyzed. Your senses are cut off

Needs citation.

So you can feel stuff from the outside world while asleep, and act out all of your dreams?

[Eagleon]

Emotion and motive makes intelligence. You can't make intelligence without them. For an AI to learn, it must have needs. These can be hunger, thirst, sleep, comfort (much more important than people realize), pain, etc. For the needs to be met, emotions must be created to respond to them. On top of emotions, you have cognitive ability, which sorts situations, symbols, temporal/spatial information from senses and memory into action potentials. Outside of the AI entirely, there has to be a world with which it interacts and receives feedback from, creating a loop back into the AI's needs.

Grakelin: You can say that humans are emotionless with the same logic you're using, and I think you know that. At some point there has to be a little bit of common sense - if something recoils in pain, and it learns behaviors to avoid it, it's pretty safe to say it has pain, or a pain-analogue. If you're making AI that's doing your work for you, and you're using these methods to give self-motivation for improvement, it's a pretty damned good idea to assume it's not just an automaton, for the same reasons you assume other humans aren't automatons.

Also jesus 7 replies since I started this. I'm too lazy to keep up hah

[nbonaparte]

You know what? I could argue with Criptfiend and Grakelin all day. But this is a thread about AI morality, which assumes a humanlike or better AI. I'm not going to discuss this.

[metime00]

And if it achieves the same thing what is the point other then morality?

Does there even need to be a point to anything other than morality?

You know what? I could argue with Criptfiend and Grakelin all day. But this is a thread about AI morality, which assumes a humanlike or better AI. I'm not going to discuss this.

Good point.

[Criptfeind]

I claim victory by forfeit. Even if it is a hollow victory.

Anyway. It seems immoral to add emotions to AIs. That is my stance.

But if for some reason you do then they should be treated like animals.

Edit: Non human animals.

[nbonaparte]

I claim victory by forfeit. Even if it is a hollow victory.

Anyway. It seems immoral to add emotions to AIs. That is my stance.

But if for some reason you do then they should be treated like animals.

note how I said I could argue with you all day. that was attempting to maintain no winner nor loser.

Anyway, Then there's a fundamental problem with you arguing here. The basic assumption is of a humanlike AI.

[metime00]

I claim victory by forfeit. Even if it is a hollow victory.

Anyway. It seems immoral to add emotions to AIs. That is my stance.

But if for some reason you do then they should be treated like animals.

Edit: Non human animals.

That's terrible. If we have emotion-ed, human intelligence AIs, to treat them like a dog simply because they aren't exactly like humans is a travesty.

Reactions like this are what would cause a Skynet type situation to occur.

[Criptfeind]

Okay. So if you make a non human AI.

Still Immoral to add emotions.

Still should be treated like a animal if you do.

That's terrible. If we have emotion-ed, human intelligence AIs, to treat them like a dog simply because they aren't exactly like humans is a travesty.

Reactions like this are what would cause a Skynet type situation to occur.

How bad do you treat your dog?

Treat it like its intelligence deserves.

If it is a smart as a dog treat it like one and if it is a smart as a ant treat it like one. If it is as smart as a human treat it like something that is as smart as a human.

[Eagleon]

I will eat my boots if this morphs entirely into the PETA thread. Right here on webcam.
_{helps that I don't have boots.}

[metime00]

Okay. So if you make a non human AI.

Still Immoral to add emotions.

Still should be treated like a animal if you do.

That's terrible. If we have emotion-ed, human intelligence AIs, to treat them like a dog simply because they aren't exactly like humans is a travesty.

Reactions like this are what would cause a Skynet type situation to occur.

How bad do you treat your dog?

Treat it like its intelligence deserves.

If it is a smart as a dog treat it like one and if it is a smart as a ant treat it like one. If it is as smart as a human treat it like something that is as smart as a human.

And this thread is, as has been said multiple times, assuming human level intelligence. So you're saying it should be treated as a human.

[Grakelin]

Actually, yeah, if I was 100% sure that something was a sociopath (as I would be with a man-made computer), I WOULD kill it. Especially if it was in a position to destroy me.

Eagle: Yeah, some humans ARE emotionless. They're called sociopaths or psychopaths (largely interchangeable terms by current vocabulary). But the machine still isn't alive. It is deeply capable of being malicious, it is capable of causing us harm, it is capable of defending itself and meeting its needs at any cost - but it is still not a sentient being, capable of being alive.

nbonaparte: Cool, but you're missing the point that we're arguing that the AI will never be alive enough to care about killing it, because it can never really be a sentient being.

[Criptfeind]

Anyway, if I had three doors, labeled one two and three. One if them has a car behind it and the others have nothing. You pick a door and then I open another door that has nothing behind it.

Do you switch to the other door or stay with your original?

[Zangi]

I claim victory by forfeit. Even if it is a hollow victory.

Anyway. It seems immoral to add emotions to AIs. That is my stance.

But if for some reason you do then they should be treated like animals.

Edit: Non human animals.

That's terrible. If we have emotion-ed, human intelligence AIs, to treat them like a dog simply because they aren't exactly like humans is a travesty.

Reactions like this are what would cause a Skynet type situation to occur.

Skynet is just 1 super AI controlling a lot of dangerous toys.

Its actually more Geth-like, technically, if they didn't have the hive mind, except being treated like slaves/pets/property instead of being genocide.

Majority of humanity can never treat Robots like equals.  Most will treat their slaves/pets/property well though.  If the Robot doesn't make assertions of being more then that...

[nbonaparte]

Treat it like its intelligence deserves.

If it is a smart as a dog treat it like one and if it is a smart as a ant treat it like one. If it is as smart as a human treat it like something that is as smart as a human.

This I can work with. The computer you're posting from probably has processing power in the same order of magnitude as a mouse. If it was simulating a mouse brain, I would have no problem turning it off. That brings up the question, though, how do you treat an intelligence far greater than your own?

Majority of humanity can never treat Robots like equals.  Most will treat their slaves/pets/property well though.  If the Robot doesn't make assertions of being more then that...

Wait a few generations.