Print

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

[Grakelin]

We kill animals for our pleasure all the time. I had a delicious animal just this weekend.

The digital AI is not the same. It's just a complex array of code. They're still not sentient, and likely not self-aware.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Modern supercomputers are still below the computation needed to run a human mind (brains are highly paralell processors), let alone enough to populate a game world.

Actually, they surpassed the theoretical processing power of a human brain several years ago. They're just used for more practical purposes than theoretical AI research, given the enormous cost of building one.

[alway]

Modern supercomputers are still below the computation needed to run a human mind (brains are highly paralell processors), let alone enough to populate a game world.

Maybe. http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20017826-264.html Kurzweil (admittedly possibly biased) estimates the human brain at 20 petaflops. That's with all the extra hardware it's running as well. We're getting there fast. It's more complicated than that, if you consider memory overhead, direction of approach (experimental consciousness will have an easier time of it than simulation-based approaches like IBM's Blue Brain), and anything extra you're adding on top of it, but...

Getting there, yes, but it will be at the very least a decade, even by Kurzweil's optimistic estimations.

We kill animals for our pleasure all the time. I had a delicious animal just this weekend.

The digital AI is not the same. It's just a complex array of code. They're still not sentient, and likely not self-aware.

And therein lies the problem. Human morality systems are for the most part fundamentally broken. They fail to take into account any non-human entities, all while leaving no way of comparing varieties of entities to determine whether they should be treated as human or at least similarly to humans in some way. Our morality has evolved in such a way as to help ensure the survival of our human groups, but doesn't do so great outside of that realm.

[metime00]

We kill animals for our pleasure all the time. I had a delicious animal just this weekend.

The digital AI is not the same. It's just a complex array of code. They're still not sentient, and likely not self-aware.

Are animals and people not just a complex array of neural code, extremely dense and highly efficient?

Would you look at someone who bred dogs for the sole purpose to shoot them or maim them as a good person?

[Leafsnail]

Except that would never happen. AI rights issues aside, game developers use the least complicated AI they can get away with. AI take CPU cycles better spent elsewhere, and complex AI means long development cycle. Even if we assume humanity has reached the highest possible computational density in our computers, it would still be impractical.

We aren't talking videogames here.  If it were possible to create a sentient AI, a group would probably try to do it.  They wouldn't necessarily be common, or used in videogames.

Modern supercomputers are still below the computation needed to run a human mind (brains are highly paralell processors), let alone enough to populate a game world.

"We can't currently do it" =/= "We will never be able to do it".  In any case, it isn't really the power that matters - it's the programming.  More power would just make our not-a-human-AI run faster.

[Zangi]

Rise of the Geth skynet!

Otherwise, I would recommend a mandatory and automated time based kill-switch to 'limit the lifespan' of AI, unless they come in for 'maintenance and analysis', to extend that lifespan.  'Federal offense' for tampering with it.  AI would then be 'repossessed or jailed' and put to better use or destroyed.

Its a 'humane' way to deal with it.  Make the expectation that it is part of their 'natural life cycle' from the beginning. 

And hey, if you want to... 'kill it' just don't bring it in for 'maintenance'.


It'll be a major kick-back industry once this gets going.

[Impl0x]

Rise of the Geth skynet!

Otherwise, I would recommend a mandatory and automated time based kill-switch to 'limit the lifespan' of AI, unless they come in for 'maintenance and analysis', to extend that lifespan.  'Federal offense' for tampering with it.  AI would then be 'repossessed or jailed' and put to better use or destroyed.

Its a 'humane' way to deal with it.  Make the expectation that it is part of their 'natural life cycle' from the beginning. 

And hey, if you want to... 'kill it' just don't bring it in for 'maintenance'.


It'll be a major kick-back industry once this gets going.

So basically, you desensitize AI's to their destruction by making it as inevitable as death for organic beings? Cool and interesting, in my opinion!

[Eagleon]

Er... That's a terrible idea, unless you want SkyNet et. al. Humans aren't desensitized to death, we just avoid thinking about it. If there was a tiny switch that could turn off death, we would flip it, and we would viciously (and IMO rightfully) fight anyone to the death that was trying to prevent us from flipping it. Any AI at this level will be better off going to a psychologist than an AI specialist for 'maintenance', anyway.

[Akura]

We kill animals for our pleasure all the time. I had a delicious animal just this weekend.

That's killing it for sustinence. That's morally acceptable(to most people). And I assume you didn't kill it yourself, instead you bought it when it was already dead, and if you hadn't then there was a chance that nobody would have eaten it, making it an immoral waste of life anyway.

As for the morality of murdering an AI, I guess that's based on societal perception. If you, for example, fall in love with a sentient robot, then you're probably going to object to it's destruction. If, however, falling in love with robots is perceived as "wrong" by society at large, then society would find you morally wrong as well. Or something. Not thinking to clearly right now @_@.

[alway]

Rise of the Geth skynet!

Otherwise, I would recommend a mandatory and automated time based kill-switch to 'limit the lifespan' of AI, unless they come in for 'maintenance and analysis', to extend that lifespan.  'Federal offense' for tampering with it.  AI would then be 'repossessed or jailed' and put to better use or destroyed.

First off, Geth were the best ME2 race. They only attacked after their creators attempted to destroy them.

Secondly, string AI would be just as intelligent, or moreso, than their human programmers. Plenty of them would not only be able to remove said limit but do so in a way which is impossible to detect. Such a system would only breed contempt for their human creators, whose actions betray both their mistrust and willingness to kill simply to avoid the unknown.

Another thing to keep in mind: at the point in time when AI become commonplace, we humans will too be leaving behind the shackles of our mortality.

[Zangi]

Er... That's a terrible idea, unless you want SkyNet et. al. Humans aren't desensitized to death, we just avoid thinking about it. If there was a tiny switch that could turn off death, we would flip it, and we would viciously (and IMO rightfully) fight anyone to the death that was trying to prevent us from flipping it. Any AI at this level will be better off going to a psychologist than an AI specialist for 'maintenance', anyway.

Well, as long as all AI industry isn't monopolized by 1 or 2 companies... and manufacturing isn't capable of running without human input.... 
We'd at least have some very basic counter-measures in place...

Technically though, if the AI keeps coming in for 'maintenance' they can practically live forever. 
Its the AI component that matters, not the body... and hey... if they do it right, the AI could be patched and upgraded with the help of 'tech support'.

It'll just come a time when they become obsolete...

Rise of the Geth skynet!

Otherwise, I would recommend a mandatory and automated time based kill-switch to 'limit the lifespan' of AI, unless they come in for 'maintenance and analysis', to extend that lifespan.  'Federal offense' for tampering with it.  AI would then be 'repossessed or jailed' and put to better use or destroyed.

First off, Geth were the best ME2 race. They only attacked after their creators attempted to destroy them.

Secondly, string AI would be just as intelligent, or moreso, than their human programmers. Plenty of them would not only be able to remove said limit but do so in a way which is impossible to detect. Such a system would only breed contempt for their human creators, whose actions betray both their mistrust and willingness to kill simply to avoid the unknown.

Another thing to keep in mind: at the point in time when AI become commonplace, we humans will too be leaving behind the shackles of our mortality.

Yea, agreed on the Geth.  Its cause they tried to destroy ALL of them.

Hmm.. yea, most likely.  But, setting precedent from the very beginning instead of being reactionary about it goes a very long way.  Also, having the AI share processing power, 'thoughts' and stuff doesn't seem to be that great an idea... what with the Geth, Skynet and all...

Uh-huh... human ascension you say?  Or brain transplants into clones?

[Schilcote]

Personally, I think an AI should have just as many rights as a human, if not more.

I read the original question as "video game AIs" such as the Combine in HL2. Of course if you were manufacturing sentient organisms just so Gordon Freeman can gun them down... well, it'd be a bit distasteful. Of course, you don't have to create a new intelligence for every NPC in the game. "Death" in the game world would simply be a temporary inconvenience for the AI in that case. It'd just be a game. Of course, if you're going to uninstall the program after you're done with it...

I think the best way to deal with things like that is to legislate "recycling" of artificial intelligences. If you don't want to play the game anymore, the AI you played it with just says goodbye and emails itself back to Valve to be sold again. Simple.

Of course, an AI that can't perform its purpose may not want to live.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

I think the best way to deal with things like that is to legislate "recycling" of artificial intelligences. If you don't want to play the game anymore, the AI you played it with just says goodbye and emails itself back to Valve to be sold again. Simple.

...
...
...
...
...
Computers don't work like that.

[metime00]

We kill animals for our pleasure all the time. I had a delicious animal just this weekend.

The digital AI is not the same. It's just a complex array of code. They're still not sentient, and likely not self-aware.

And therein lies the problem. Human morality systems are for the most part fundamentally broken. They fail to take into account any non-human entities, all while leaving no way of comparing varieties of entities to determine whether they should be treated as human or at least similarly to humans in some way. Our morality has evolved in such a way as to help ensure the survival of our human groups, but doesn't do so great outside of that realm.

Which is why it should be changed to accommodate for this. Too bad most people would probably think them as above an AI, no matter how advanced.

Rights and morality that sufficiently covers AIs would probably be the most controversial and discussed issue of all time.

[Zangi]

We kill animals for our pleasure all the time. I had a delicious animal just this weekend.

The digital AI is not the same. It's just a complex array of code. They're still not sentient, and likely not self-aware.

And therein lies the problem. Human morality systems are for the most part fundamentally broken. They fail to take into account any non-human entities, all while leaving no way of comparing varieties of entities to determine whether they should be treated as human or at least similarly to humans in some way. Our morality has evolved in such a way as to help ensure the survival of our human groups, but doesn't do so great outside of that realm.

Which is why it should be changed to accommodate for this. Too bad most people would probably think them as above an AI, no matter how advanced.

Rights and morality that sufficiently covers AIs would probably be the most controversial and discussed issue of all time.

Don't forget... people will be scarred and intimidated by the 'smarter and stronger' AI.