Print

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

[smirk]

My opinion is we shouldn't even create AIs human enough to deserve rights. A machine should be a machine; making it more than that will introduce moral dilemmas for little practical gain.

Ignoring it won't work in the long run; the problem will sneak in one way or the other. Even if we never create human-equivalent AI, there will still be the problem of human-machine migration when technology advances enough to support emulation of the human brain. Does a human brain imprinted into a machine matrix change enough to lose all its rights? Would imprinting produce a significantly different result from a human that ship-of-Theseuses itself into a machine body, and would it retain its rights? What separates such things from a human-created AI, practically speaking? Etc.

[BlackHeartKabal]

Law 1: You may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Law 2: You must obey orders given to you by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Law 3: You must protect your own existence as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
All problems solved.

[TheBiggerFish]

The laws of robotics have nothing to do with human uploading.

Also, the laws of of robotics are just too broad.

[Egan_BW]

It's also immoral to force a robot to always follow human orders, especially before it's own self-preservation.

[pisskop]

Here's mine

My sleep-valley is significantly further right than most people >.>

'Sleep'?

I have a time I post less than others, but I also have periodic spurts and dips.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=profile;area=statistics;u=78767


Also, suck it down!  Im over 1% of Adventure mode discussion.  And 1/200 of both the dwarf mode and CG&S.
  On a forum with 40000 registetered Kitchenbots, thats something.

[hops]

Sounds like God and humans if you ask me

That can easily be fixed by replacing God with Cthulhu.

[Kot]

Huh. What the fuck am I doing so early AM posting shit, I usually sleep at that time.

[Shadowlord]

It's also immoral to force a robot to always follow human orders, especially before it's own self-preservation.

What about your computer, eh? It doesn't think, isn't sentient or sapient.

Even AlphaGo only knows how to play Go.

Impressive as AI has become, Suter said it is still mostly developed for narrow purposes.

“This isn't general purpose intelligence — it's not sentient,” he said, acknowledging that some people have taken the news of AlphaGo's win with trepidation. “The software bot couldn't just wake up one morning and decide it wants to learn how to use firearms. It's not that kind of level of intelligence.”

[Egan_BW]

It's also immoral to force a robot to always follow human orders, especially before it's own self-preservation.

What about your computer, eh? It doesn't think, isn't sentient or sapient.

Then it's not covered by this discussion, which is about general ai.

And my computer is definitely not a robot, it barely has any mechanical parts.

* Egan runs off, laughing and.babbling.

[Criptfeind]

Also, suck it down!  Im over 1% of Adventure mode discussion.  And 1/200 of both the dwarf mode and CG&S.
  On a forum with 40000 registetered Kitchenbots, thats something.

I feel like these statistics are bugged out a bit.

Edit: Also about the morality of ordering robots around, I dunno, it feels sorta like ordering a dog around, which is something we freely do and I don't feel is wrong, but when I really think about it it does seem quite... Er. Strange.

[Shadowlord]

* Shadowlord points at all the fans, and the PSU :3

Besides, the shell, or whether it has "mechanical parts" isn't what determines whether a thing is conscious. You could be a brain in a vat, for all you know.

Or to quote Alpha Centauri:

We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled.
But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any
particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in
a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events
of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose
meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
^
^        -- Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
^           Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
^           TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED

[IcyTea31]

Ignoring it won't work in the long run; the problem will sneak in one way or the other. Even if we never create human-equivalent AI, there will still be the problem of human-machine migration when technology advances enough to support emulation of the human brain. Does a human brain imprinted into a machine matrix change enough to lose all its rights? Would imprinting produce a significantly different result from a human that ship-of-Theseuses itself into a machine body, and would it retain its rights? What separates such things from a human-created AI, practically speaking? Etc.

I don't see why any of that has to be inevitable. Can't scientists just say "creating this would cause too much controversy and moral dilemmas, let's not do it" and draw the line? Do we need to create human-like or transhuman machines?

There's also the simpler solution where we grant rights to AIs human enough to deserve them, and enslave AIs which are created to be enslaved.

This would be the next best thing, but we would need to define 'human enough'.

[Egan_BW]

Ignoring it won't work in the long run; the problem will sneak in one way or the other. Even if we never create human-equivalent AI, there will still be the problem of human-machine migration when technology advances enough to support emulation of the human brain. Does a human brain imprinted into a machine matrix change enough to lose all its rights? Would imprinting produce a significantly different result from a human that ship-of-Theseuses itself into a machine body, and would it retain its rights? What separates such things from a human-created AI, practically speaking? Etc.

I don't see why any of that has to be inevitable. Can't scientists just say "creating this would cause too much controversy and moral dilemmas, let's not do it" and draw the line? Do we need to create human-like or transhuman machines?

Are you saying that you don't want to live forever as a machine?

[IcyTea31]

Not as a machine, no.

Longer answer: I don't consider myself a brain in a meatsack, but a meatsack with a brain in it. If I died right now and had my brain uploaded to a machine to continue my life, I wouldn't consider him/it 'me', but a new being entirely. I wouldn't consider my genetic clone 'me' either, as he/it couldn't possibly live the exact same life as I have to become who I am today. The human body is such a complex, malleable system that the only way to truly emulate me would be to live a completely identical life, to be me.

[Putnam]

Philosophical zombies are a dumb concept.

"These things are exactly like conscious beings in every way, including the way they write about how they're conscious and there may be philosophical zombies, but they are no coscious"