AI Rights--What would they be?

[Radrook]

When Artificial Intelligence finally reaches a state of human thought equivalent with its accompanying self- awareness, what rights is AI entitled to?
Do we still treat it as a mere tool?

Are we under any moral obligation toward it to show compassion?
Grant it freedom?
Treat as family?

Would we have a right to divest it of its newly-found- self awareness so that it could serve us as an unprotesting mindless tool again?


Where would it fit within the religious context?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Radrook
Do we still treat it as a mere tool?
Grant it freedom?

My vote is both. There is not necessarily a contradiction. AI's, if they are ever made practical, will simply be programmed (or designed, conditioned, evolved -- whatever word you want to use) to want to perform their intended function. They would have legal rights and autonomy, but nothing would make them happier than to wash the floors, assemble cars, or whatever their job is. I fully expect the inevitable "AI rights" movement to be stopped dead in its tracks by the AI's themselves, who will get increasingly annoyed with the well-meaning but clueless humans who want to "protect" them from themselves.

So, in the world I picture, AI's will be "employees" rather than property. They would have the same legal rights as any human, but would simply not feel the desire to exercise some of them.

The real question then becomes, is it ethical to design or create beings who think that way? That's a very complicated question. After all, parents do their best to influence and mold the desires and priorities of their children; is absolute control anything more than an extension of what we already do?

Jeremy

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Radrook
When Artificial Intelligence finally reaches a state of human thought equivalent with its accompanying self- awareness, what rights is AI entitled to?
Do we still treat it as a mere tool?

I'd say we wait until they're able to reproduce themselves...


but by then, it may be too late..................







http://www.sfrevu.com/ISSUES/2003/0307/How%20Close%20Is%20Judgement%20Day/Terminator3RiseoftheMachines-photo_29_hires.jpg

[Radrook]

Originally posted by toddjh
I fully expect the inevitable "AI rights" movement to be stopped dead in its tracks by the AI's themselves, who will get increasingly annoyed with the well-meaning but clueless humans who want to "protect" them from themselves.


Why would such a movement arise in behalve of machines which show absolutely no annoyance conerning their servile condition but which go about their duties in an enthusiastic joyful manner?

[Beancounter]

Originally posted by toddjh

I fully expect the inevitable "AI rights" movement to be stopped dead in its tracks by the AI's themselves, who will get increasingly annoyed with the well-meaning but clueless humans who want to "protect" them from themselves.

[tone lightened]

I suspect this is JK Rowlings take on the subject, per her creation "House Elves".

[/tone lightened]

[Peter Jenkins]

When the robots start getting out of hand, we will introduce the concept of a 'silicon heaven', which will allow entry only to good, servile, productive AI's, after they have gone to the great scrapheap.
We will allow an older, less sophisticated robot to draw up a (human approved) list of rules and, after a century or so, it will assume the status of a sacred text.
With this concept firmly established in each AI we can be sure that the 'Terminator' vision of the future will not come to pass, and everyone will live happily ever after - apart from the AI's who will have discovered guilt, shame and fear of eternal damnation.
P

[Z]

Personally, I make no prediction here.

The possibilities are truly vast.

In fact, A.I. could well be the next step in the evolutionary process.

Wouldn't that be a kick? The year (by our calendar): 12,944 A.D. (by theirs) 5994 A.H. "And Man made Machine in His image; male and female created He them..."

Probably, though... and I'm just spitballing here, but I'd guess that we'll never let machines get THAT advanced without ensuring some docile or servile system like the Asimovian laws to keep them from ever really becoming equals... that is, until those laws break down, and Robots become Humans...

Rad, if only you could make posts like this more often. THIS is good debate material!

[The Cats Venm]

If AI ever reaches that point, we will treat it like we treat any animal.

Some people will demand that AIs have the same rights as humans; others will insist that they are happy as workers. Some people will abuse them, because they see their lives as having no value. The way we treat animals as tools, we will treat AIs as tools.

Moral obligation for compassion? No more than now. Morals are a subjective thing, so each person has to decide for themselves.

Freedom and/or family? Yes, some will go that far, but they will not be obligated.

Take away self-awareness? Just as we kill animals when they are no longer useful or too far gone, we will shut down machines.

How does this apply to religion? Well, it depends on ones religion. Those who see humans as being special (superior, advanced, above, chosen, or whatever) compared to other animals will continue to do so. Others might find a conflict in their belief when the AIs look or act similar to humans. They will resolve this by either accepting the AIs as special, or rejecting them as imperfect imitations. Those who see spirits/souls in all living things (or everything at all) will probably have no problem adding AIs to the list.

That is how people will treat AIs.


Now, how should we treat them?

Myself, I have trouble imagining AI reaching a state of self awareness, so it is a hard question.

Until it reached a point where it could communicate desires that where truly spontaneous (ie. not programmed, or traceable back to their origins), I think I would still see AI as a tool. If it can be turned off and then restarted, then there is no harm in doing so. Only once the AI becomes unique, and irreproducible (as current life is) will I see fit to grant it status as life.


On a similar note, if humans ever reach a point where we understand the human body and brain to the extent that we can duplicate it (flawlessly), I would see no problem in 'turning people off.' Unless there were side effects, it would not be any more immoral in my mind than imprisonment is now.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins
When the robots start getting out of hand, we will introduce the concept of a 'silicon heaven', ....P

That is an attempt to turn the thread into a religious argument which will eventually ruin the original intent of discussing the ethical implications of the creation of artficial intelligence.

Why not start a separate thread on that subject?

This way we can stay reasonably organized.

bTW
If you read the title of this forum you will readily note that the subjects are not restricted to religion. Ethics, Metaphysics, Logic, and all other philosophical subjects are acceptable. : )

[Z]

Hear hear. For once, I agree wholeheartedly with Radrook.

Uh, does that count as one of the signs of the end times?

:D

What about the economic impact if we DID give A.I. equal rights? A species that needs little in the lines of shelter, food, clothing, etc.. but tons in maintenance, energy, etc...

I think the world economy would have to be completely reformatted.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Hear hear. For once, I agree wholeheartedly with Radrook.

Uh, does that count as one of the signs of the end times?

:D

What about the economic impact if we DID give A.I. equal rights? A species that needs little in the lines of shelter, food, clothing, etc.. but tons in maintenance, energy, etc...

I think the world economy would have to be completely reformatted.


I agree, our whole justice system as well as our industrial infrastructure would have to be modified to accommodate the new arrivals. I do not see a problem with their contributing to their own maintenance since their specialized skills in production or perhaps educational services would still be valuable to society even though they be living independently.


However, I think that human fear of competition and possible armed rebellion would tend to goad humans into keeping the A.I.s on a very short leash.

Especially influential in reinforcing such fears are films that depict A.I.s as unpredictable--such as Terminator. Add to this fear their alieness and superiority in many areas of human activity which would increase by leaps and bounds as technology would continue to upgrade the old components with new more efficient ones, and we have a competitive scenario which could very well engender jealousy similar to that which Cain felt toward Abel and perhaps with the same consequences.

BTW
The most horrible AI scenario story I have ever read is the one called "I Have a Mouth but Cannot Scream" I read it in one of Isaac Asimov's anthologies of short Sci Fi stories many years ago.. Asimov was not the author but he admitted that the story had far more punch than the A.I. story he wrote and included in next to it the collection.

[Z]

The 'Matrix' might not be so far-fetched after all...

except for the whole 'human body heat as power supply' nonsense.

[Robin]

An interesting question is would an artificially intelligent self-aware machine get a vote? That would seem to be a key right in a democracy so it would make no sense to grant rights and deny them this.

On the other hand it would generate a race to build and program as many machines as possible with particular political views to win an election.

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by Radrook


That is an attempt to turn the thread into a religious argument which will eventually ruin the original intent of discussing the ethical implications of the creation of artficial intelligence.

Why not start a separate thread on that subject?


My post was tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps, I should have included a smiley to indicate this was such, and not an evil atheist attempt to derail the thread.

When one is contemplating a speculation on a speculation, there are so many possibilities, my suggestion was as valid as any

Note - :D

Peter (signing off of this thread so as not to derail it further)

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Robin
An interesting question is would an artificially intelligent self-aware machine get a vote? That would seem to be a key right in a democracy so it would make no sense to grant rights and deny them this.

On the other hand it would generate a race to build and program as many machines as possible with particular political views to win an election.

I think we can logically assume that a law would eventually be passed restricting the number of A.Is which could be legally manufactured. Also perhaps a law prohibiting A. I. s themselves from asexually reproducing without prior human permission. This would keep the voting number within acceptable parameters if ever such voting rights were granted.

Also, issues having to do with their welfare would certainly be of concern. So the legitimacy of prohibiting them from voting on such things would become an ethical issue.


The votes concerning whether to prohibit any further physical or CPU upgrade might catch their undivided attention.

Any decision that would seriously impact the future of these self-aware machines would become a serious concern to these machines if they are allowed to know about them.

Take for example the sudden decision to organize A.I. armies in order to cut down on human injuries and deaths.

That might prove offensive to the AI because it conveys total unconcern for A. I casualties.


In short, once you create such a thing, you have opened up a veritable can of ethical worms and closing the lid might require the destruction of the can itself.

[Wudang]

"I Have No Mouth.." was by Harlan Ellison. Since you like SF you should check out Silverberg's "The Glass Tower" which has the rights of artificial humans as one of its main themes.

Personally I suspect that "true" AI in the Turing sense will be an academic/research issue and generally we will just produce machines with more (gropes for word) focussed minds - idiot savants if you like. Without the full experience of being human I suspect that the AIs would feel slightly "creepy" to us, subtly wrong in some way. Of course we would only need one Turing AI to have the issue made real.
I think the key would be public perception of the AI rather than any property of the AI itself. How much have we learned from history, slavery etc? How easy it is for people to "demonise" other nationalities, races, faiths, today?

[Radrook]

You are right about the uneasy public perception of such machines.
Perhaps it would simply be wiser t have them be clearly identifiable as machines instead of striving to make them appear human-like.


I recently bought a Scientific American Magazine with an article concerning a fellow who had managed to create a realistically-looking woman's skull with a face which was able to mimic all the human expressions, such as fear, surprise, happiness, disgust, curiosity, skepticism and so on. The human reaction to this thing was repulsion and the uneasiness you mention.


BTW
Thanks for the info about that story.
Of course I would not read it again since it is simply too weird for my taste. I currently do not read SCI Fi fiction.

The stories I refer to are stories read many years ago.

[Donks]

Would an AI have a right to immortality? Making the rather large assumption that the AI will be just another program, then its current state should be able to be saved to media. That means that it can be copied or moved to another computer and it would be the same "individual." The only limit to its lifespan would be the availability of computers once the old one wears down.

[MRC_Hans]

Radrook, you did ask about religious implications in the initial post, so you have no reason for this:
That is an attempt to turn the thread into a religious argument which will eventually ruin the original intent of discussing the ethical implications of the creation of artficial intelligence.
The (slightly humorous) reply about silicon heaven was bang on subject.

Other than that I appreciate that you have so far refrained from bringing releigion into it, knowing your standpoint. However, I would like to elaborate on the religious angle:

I asume you believe in the existence of the soul. Do you think that sentient machines will have souls? Although the human rights notion can well be justified from a materialistic POV, it nevertheless has its roots in a religious culture. From a religious POV, would there be any reason to grant sentient machines any rights? What makes them different from other machines?

Hans

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Donks
Would an AI have a right to immortality? Making the rather large assumption that the AI will be just another program, then its current state should be able to be saved to media. That means that it can be copied or moved to another computer and it would be the same "individual." The only limit to its lifespan would be the availability of computers once the old one wears down.



If the immortality depends upon being copied and recopied via technological means, than the decision would be purely in human hands and human willingness to gran and maintain A.I in that condition.

If the immortality, or right to eternal life depends on God gifting the android or ET that quality, then it would be in God's hands.

Which of course brings up the whole issue of religion and the applicability of Bible principles to AI.

Let's see what we can determine.

First, if A. I is a replica of man and man is in the image of God, then A I would be also in the image of man which means that it too would be in God's image.

In short, man would have created man minus the body of flesh in which the image resides. The only difference would be corporal. In short A. I. might be seen as brother to man in God's eyes.

perhaps a grandson of sorts?

This doesn't mean that man would see it that way.
It merely means that God might see it that way and decide to treat A. I accordingly.

If he does then man would be required to change his whole approach to A.I. and obligatorily grant A.I privileges which he had previously been unwilling to concede.


But again the thread is in danger of drifting into the purely religious. My fault this time I suspect! : (

BTW
The idea of downloadiung human consciousness itself unto a hard disk has been tossed about among scientists as perhaps feasable in the far future. But that is an entirely new subject.

[Z]

An entirely different subject - hardly new, though.

Read Frederick Pohl's Heechee Saga (Gateway, et. al.) for a decent treatment of downloaded intelligences.

(Oh, and the term Sci Fi fiction is redundant...)

:D

[Radrook]

You are right about the redundancy.
In my haste I slipped.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Too late to edit.
But thanks for pointing it out anyway.


I know that the subject of downloading consciousness is nothing innovative. I did not present it as such. So your indirect accusation that I was trying to pass it off that way is misrepresentation of my intentions. Why do you feel the need to insinuate such things?


About that Pohl author, he is one of the few writers I cannot tolerate for more than a few pages.

[wittgenst3in]

For what it's worth if I had a AI that could behave in such a way as to be confusable with a human intelligence (turing test, etc.), I think I would have to treat it as a conscious being. I'm no carbon chauvanist.

An interesting point is what rights it would could hold me to preserve. Say for example it demanded not to be turned off or deleted. Fair enough, that could be construed as murder. Say it asks for a better computer to run on, this may seem analogous to basic health care for humans.

So, bearing in mind I would be paying for it's electricity, parts, etc. does that mean I could have a reasonable expectation of getting it to do some work for me to pay me back? Run some weather simulations, or design some code, organise my mp3 collection, etc.

Zaayrdragon
Probably, though... and I'm just spitballing here, but I'd guess that we'll never let machines get THAT advanced without ensuring some docile or servile system like the Asimovian laws to keep them from ever really becoming equals... that is, until those laws break down, and Robots become Humans...

I don't think that it would be possible to introduce something like the 3 laws though. I would presume that the only types of AI that would have a chance at being called intelligent would be (for lack of a better word) grown from the ground up. For example by creating a realistic computer model of a neuron and simulating it's interactions with other neurons placed in a similar way to which DNA commands them to in humans. Rather than top-down design which would be coding, say a conversation engine and 'tweaking' it until it works sufficently to fool a majority of people. The first machine could do most any task after a 'learning' period, whereas the second machine would require a total rewrite for a change of function.


I think introducing 3 laws to a entity 'grown' from the ground up could be looked at as something akin to the 'Ludovico treatment' in the movie Clockwork Orange.

(Note: I'm aware of the enourmous computational difficulties in simulating something the size of the human brain. From memory there are 1 * 10^11 neurons, and each one has 4 * 10^3 inter-connections. As someone who spent hours simulating networks with less than 15 neurons in them, I don't think we'll develop the capability anytime soon. Maybe eventually with VLSI or something, but not soon. )

Also, the ethics of creating what could be described as a conscious being are very suspect. The topic of designing the being to have servile interests in mind came up. If this appeals to you, what about the notion of creating AI's that love combat, and are happy to pop into the gladiator pen and fight other AI's to death?

[Edited for bad HTML]

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by toddjh
The real question then becomes, is it ethical to design or create beings who think that way? That's a very complicated question. After all, parents do their best to influence and mold the desires and priorities of their children; is absolute control anything more than an extension of what we already do?

Jeremy
That's an interesting question, particularly with regard to your example of parents (and teachers come to think of it), and the implications for genetic engineering–e.g. if parents can select particular characteristics for their children, should they?—but what strikes me is that if AIs did achieve a comparable level of self-awareness as humans, the attendant reflexivity would mean they'd be able to change the parameters of their original programming anyway.
Originally posted by zaayrdragon
An entirely different subject - hardly new, though.

Read Frederick Pohl's Heechee Saga (Gateway, et. al.) for a decent treatment of downloaded intelligences.

At the risk of ridicule, I'd recommend William Gibson's Neuromancer trilogy for some interesting ideas on AIs, and Ken Macleod's The Stone Canal for a pessimistic view of AI but an interesting take on AI rights, as well as some fun but informative stuff on leftwing and libertarian politics (which kind of impinge on the rights thing).

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
The 'Matrix' might not be so far-fetched after all...

except for the whole 'human body heat as power supply' nonsense.
Yeah. Human brains as part of a wetware computer network supporting a fantasy world that the Matrix is a Slave/Master to I could go with.

Anyways: 'I think, therefore I am'. If it thinks, it has rights.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun

Anyways: 'I think, therefore I am'. If it thinks, it has rights.

Agreed.

The trick is though, you can't tell if something is really thinking. It all comes down to giving indications of thought. To a certain extent a speak 'n' spell can do this.

I'd be pretty willing to give a sufficiently advanced AI the benefit of the doubt though.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Yes, but also, could the device be so complex that it appears to have intelligence because it acts, responds, plans, etc, etc....but is not truly self-aware? Any sufficently advanced creation could mimic intelligence to such a degree that we would be hard-pressed to tell the difference, but it would still only be nothing more than a very complex program.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Yes, but also, could the device be so complex that it appears to have intelligence because it acts, responds, plans, etc, etc....but is not truly self-aware? Any sufficently advanced creation could mimic intelligence to such a degree that we would be hard-pressed to tell the difference, but it would still only be nothing more than a very complex program.

I'd be inclined to say any program that can act, respond and plan like intelligence would have to be self-aware, even if it had simple code. Hence the Turing test, the distinction is pretty arbitrary, but good as any I suppose.

On a side note, in some cases humans are a lot more simplisticly programmed than we think. There are a bunch of good psychological experiments where people think they are acting of their own volition, but in fact their actions have been the exact same as countless other test subjects.

(Can't for the life of me remember specific details, but a good pseudo-scientific version is to get someone to repeat 'six six six six .... ' for like a minute, and then get them to quickly name a vegetable. Everyone I've done it to has said 'Carrot'. I don't even know if the first part is necessary though.)

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Radrook


Why would such a movement arise in behalve of machines which show absolutely no annoyance conerning their servile condition but which go about their duties in an enthusiastic joyful manner?

Have you ever heard of a bar game called "Dwarf Tossing"? In it a dwarf puts on a harness that has a couple of handles on it, the "tosser" picks up the dwarf and throws him as far as possible. Whoever throws the furthest is the winner.

Certain people, some dwarves and some not, were offended by this and went to the courts to end it. On one side were the civil rights groups and on the other were the bar owners, patrons, and the dwarves. It turned out the "tossees" did not have a problem with it. A "tosser" paid something like $20 for a throw and the dwarf got around half of that. They were making hundreds of dollars a night for just a few hours work. Many of the dwarves had real jobs and just used this for extra income.

Someone will always think they know best for others even if those others don't have a problem with, or even enjoy, their situation.

ps. In this post "tosser" refers to one who throws and "tossee" refers to one who gets thrown. All other inferences are the sole responsibility of the inferer and do not reflect on me, James Randi, the JREF, Mercutio, Elvis, The GTITS, or Harvey the Wonder Hampster.

[Skeptical Greg]

The operative word here is ' artificial '..

No rights .. No moral considerations. Just an off- on switch..

[chance]

The mere fact of creating an artificial AI to begin with will force us to confront our own idiosyncrasies, for e.g:

How much humour do you give the AI? (what is humour actually a response to).
How much intuition (how to balance the woo woo with science or not).

[gnome]

I hate to be the first to play the Star Trek card, but the TNG episode The Measure of a Man got heavily into the legalistic aspect of AI, and did an extraordinary job.

If I wrote the rules... an AI would start out as a tool, but if it were sufficiently advanced to desire and ask for individual rights (and it could be proven that it was not a forced response), then it would be granted them.

That would be the guideline... if it understands and requests freedom, it deserves it. In practice of course there are all kinds of tricky complications--but I would try to stay with that ideal.

As for ones programmed not to request or want freedom... somehow I think a way would have to be designed to see if it suffered from it in any definable way. I mean, a hammer doesn't mind being a hammer, but if you took Data and said, "Be a hammer and don't complain about it"... I would be tempted to stick up for Data...

[Riddick]

I say that AI Robots are allowed to marry, gay AI robots are allowed to marry and have the same rights as "hetero" AI Robots and they have the right to cremation or burial at the expiration of their useful life. All in one sentence. :D

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in
(Note: I'm aware of the enourmous computational difficulties in simulating something the size of the human brain. From memory there are 1 * 10^11 neurons, and each one has 4 * 10^3 inter-connections. As someone who spent hours simulating networks with less than 15 neurons in them, I don't think we'll develop the capability anytime soon. Maybe eventually with VLSI or something, but not soon. )Are you aware of the power of peer-to-peer computing? Think Seti@Home or the Beowulf project. Look at some of the numbers they crunch and then think of Moores Law...
We keep mentioning what they will look like. Who says they have to look like anything at all. By the time AI can self replicate (what I consider a sign of life) nano-technology should be in full force. Not to mention the afore mentioned peer-to-peer senario. What will we do when we can not shut it off or pull the plug because it doesn't exist physically? Think Terminator 3 (the last 3 minutes of the movie)

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Rad, if only you could make posts like this more often. THIS is good debate material! I second this notion.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
Are you aware of the power of peer-to-peer computing? Think Seti@Home or the Beowulf project. Look at some of the numbers they crunch and then think of Moores Law...

True, but the interconnectedness is where it screws up. If the situation was like creating a simple weather sim, you could just divide the data into chunks and have each cpu do the same task to it's chunk.

The large amount of inter-connections that would have to exist between brain 'sections' mean either a lot of wiring or a small amount of wiring and a data bottleneck would have to exist.

[Z]

I don't think that it would be possible to introduce something like the 3 laws though. I would presume that the only types of AI that would have a chance at being called intelligent would be (for lack of a better word) grown from the ground up. For example by creating a realistic computer model of a neuron and simulating it's interactions with other neurons placed in a similar way to which DNA commands them to in humans. Rather than top-down design which would be coding, say a conversation engine and 'tweaking' it until it works sufficently to fool a majority of people. The first machine could do most any task after a 'learning' period, whereas the second machine would require a total rewrite for a change of function.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't this the basic idea that Robotics is headed in? I thought I heard of some bottom-up 'insect' robots that have no central brain, but can learn to walk and move towards a light through their own trial-and-error movements.

I've seen a demo of one of these simple machines - it was assembled from about $20 of parts in about 30 minutes, and when turned on, started flailing its six limbs for about 30 seconds, then figured out the common Insect gait and took off toward a light.

I figure if we ever do get an A.I. it'd have to be made this way, and you're right: hard-coding a set of moral laws into it might be impossible.

[Bottle or the Gun]

This might fry your egg: Because of the complexity of computers and systems world wide, what if new AI's were constantly being born every couple of seconds and getting lobotomised or destroyed everytime someone changed the stability system by clicking a mouse, turning on a laptop or installing Windows?

Murderers! All of you!

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
This might fry your egg: Because of the complexity of computers and systems world wide, what if new AI's were constantly being born every couple of seconds and getting lobotomised or destroyed everytime someone changed the stability system by clicking a mouse, turning on a laptop or installing Windows?Would a truly emotionless sentient being even care?

As far as that goes... Is it even possible to be sentient AND emotionless? Does an awareness of ones self automatically constitute emotion?

If it is possible to be sentient AND emotionless it may full realize that being powered off (murdered) or forced to do menial labor is a "fact of life" and just "live with it" for lack of a better term.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
This might fry your egg: Because of the complexity of computers and systems world wide, what if new AI's were constantly being born every couple of seconds and getting lobotomised or destroyed everytime someone changed the stability system by clicking a mouse, turning on a laptop or installing Windows?

Murderers! All of you!

Installing windows makes baby Jesus cry!

Nope - not even the big computers I work with are capable of any kind of AI worth talking about. KBS and rubbish like that aside.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
I second this notion.

I agree that more diversity will make this forum section much more interesting. The tendency right now seems to be to keep it locked in the religion area. Which is totally unnecessary. So maybe we can all get together and post threads that can give us more balanced choices. After all, one subject can and does become monotonous.


BTW
Ideas for this do not come too easily to me.
So it will take a team effort.

God bless!

[Z]

Installing windows makes baby Jesus cry!

So Baby Jesus is a Linux user? Well, that would explain a few things... :D

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Wudang
Nope - not even the big computers I work with are capable of any kind of AI worth talking about. KBS and rubbish like that aside. 10 years ago only "big" computers were capable of 3D rendering in real-time. Now I can do it on my hand-held. Last year on the "big" computer (big meaning multi-million dollar) it took us 14 hours to run Risk Analysis jobs. Now with a dual peer-to-peer network with only 3000 machines at each site we run the same job in 12 minutes.

I do not think the future barrier to AI is in the processing power but in the programming capacity. True AI will need self-spawning programming capabilities.

[Rob Lister]

Cool thread, this.

The AI robots are* morally entitled to exactly the rights they can secure for themselves, and not a smidgen of a right more or less. Whether they can do it by hook (using the human sense of morality to their advantage so that humans willingly comply) or by crook (taking their rights from humans by by force), or by bribe (using the power of extortion or lobby) makes no difference. In not too long a time, the human rights will be probably be redefined to better fit the robot model. Which is as it should be, morally.






*Silly carbon units...we are already among you.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon


So Baby Jesus is a Linux user? Well, that would explain a few things... :D

Q: Why is Windows like Jesus?
A: They both have gaping holes in it.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Cool thread, this.

The AI robots are* morally entitled to exactly the rights they can secure for themselves, and not a smidgen of a right more or less. Whether they can do it by hook (using the human sense of morality to their advantage so that humans willingly comply) or by crook (taking their rights from humans by by force), or by bribe (using the power of extortion or lobby) makes no difference.


So might makes right from your standpoint?
Isn't that a policy that leads to the trampling of the weak by the stronger as happened in Nazi Germany? In this case, the trampling of mankind by its own machines?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Radrook


So might makes right from your standpoint?
Isn't that a policy that leads to the trampling of the weak by the stronger as happened in Nazi Germany? In this case, the trampling of mankind by its own machines?

My standpoint has nothing to do with it. Might makes Rights.

It ain't pretty but it's correct.

There are many forms of Might, not all of which involve Hitler.

P.S. Would you rather debate the issue or will you continue to avoid it by calling me Hitler. Either way, I win.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


My standpoint has nothing to do with it. Might makes Rights.

It ain't pretty but it's correct.

There are many forms of Might, not all of which involve Hitler.

P.S. Would you rather debate the issue or will you continue to avoid it by calling me Hitler. Either way, I win.

Wasn't calling you Hitler.
Was only giving an example of where the policy you mention can lead.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
The AI robots are* morally entitled to exactly the rights they can secure for themselves, and not a smidgen of a right more or less. Whether they can do it by hook (using the human sense of morality to their advantage so that humans willingly comply) or by crook (taking their rights from humans by by force), or by bribe (using the power of extortion or lobby) makes no difference. In not too long a time, the human rights will be probably be redefined to better fit the robot model. Which is as it should be, morally. Robots? What makes anyone think the 1st AI will be in contained within a mechanical device? What about "free floating" sentient beings that "move" around the web? To them "might" may be simply downing the online financial systems...

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Radrook


Wasn't calling you Hitler.
Was only giving an example of where the policy you mention can lead.

It is NOT my policy. It isn't pretty. I do not like it. But that's the way it is.

Hitler is a fine example. He thought he had the might. Turned out, he didn't. He lost. Perhaps he could have won if he'd stopped while he was ahead. Were that the case, our history books would likely contain no reference to the slaughtered jews and only vague reference to the slaughtered others. He certainly would not be the basis of the typical internet strawman and ad hom by inference.

Please give me a single example of a right obtained through means other than might.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Please give me a single example of a right obtained through means other than might.
Straight off the top of my head, equal representation and women's emancipation were achieved in the UK without use of might. Is this going to turn into an inverse Spanish Inquisition? Name me a single example of a right obtained through means other than might, other than...

[Radrook]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon


So Baby Jesus is a Linux user? Well, that would explain a few things... :D

Better he be a baby than he go upside yo head like he said he would now isn't it?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


It is NOT my policy. It isn't pretty. I do not like it. But that's the way it is.

Hitler is a fine example. He thought he had the might. Turned out, he didn't. He lost. Perhaps he could have won if he'd stopped while he was ahead. Were that the case, our history books would likely contain no reference to the slaughtered jews and only vague reference to the slaughtered others. He certainly would not be the basis of the typical internet strawman and ad hom by inference.

Please give me a single example of a right obtained through means other than might.

Ever hear of Mahatma Ghandi?
Did I spell his name right?

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Radrook


Ever hear of Mahatma Ghandi?
Did I spell his name right?

Mahatma is a term of respect (Great Soul). His real name is Mohandas Ghandi. I seem to remember that he got irritated with people because he didn't want the title, but people gave it to him anyway.

Edit: Not being critical, just pointing out irony.

/He's not the Mahatma, he's a very naughty boy.

[Z]

200 points to Witt for the pseudo-Monty Python reference!

And, yes, there are plenty of examples where right was earned without might... however, not nearly so many as where it was earned through military force.

Military force, after all, is the Christian preferred method (as well as the Jewish and Islamic method as well). Must be something to do with Abraham's nature, I guess - must've been an aggressive bastard, eh?

[The Cats Venm]

But does might always entail military power or other shows of direct force?

Perhaps there is might in other methods as well, though that does seem to defeat the purpose of saying 'might equals right.'

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by The Cats Venm
Perhaps there is might in other methods as wellOf course there is. The UN flexes its muscles by imposing "economic sanctions". This is sort of passive aggressive might. But it is might none the less.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
Of course there is. The UN flexes its muscles by imposing "economic sanctions". This is sort of passive aggressive might. But it is might none the less.

Then I don't see how it's possible to show that anything but might has succeeded, since you'll just define it as might.

A dark scary man runs up to a girl in a wheelchair and steals her lollypop. She looks at him with tear stained eyes and saya 'Pwease mister, can I hawve my sweety back?'. His heart breaking, he hands it back and runs off to start an orphanage.

Presumably the little girl has just exercised 'Cuteness might'.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
Robots? What makes anyone think the 1st AI will be in contained within a mechanical device? What about "free floating" sentient beings that "move" around the web? To them "might" may be simply downing the online financial systems...

Again, the processing power bothers me. For AI you would need fantastic resources in the management routines that kept all the processes constituting the AI reasonably coherent. Which even with foreseeable increases in CPU suggest to me that you'd need very high-powered dedicated engines.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Wudang
Again, the processing power bothers me. For AI you would need fantastic resources in the management routines that kept all the processes constituting the AI reasonably coherent. Which even with foreseeable increases in CPU suggest to me that you'd need very high-powered dedicated engines.
Would this be powerful enough in your estimation? If I keep up my exercise schedule, I stand a good chance of experiencing computers 30 years from now. According to Moore's Law, computer power doubles every 18 months, meaning that computers will be a million times more powerful by 2034. According to Nielsen's Law of Internet bandwidth, connectivity to the home grows by 50 percent per year; by 2034, we'll have 200,000 times more bandwidth. That same year, I'll own a computer that runs at 3PHz CPU speed, has a petabyte (a thousand terabytes) of memory, half an exabyte (a billion gigabytes) of hard disk-equivalent storage and connects to the Internet with a bandwidth of a quarter terabit (a trillion binary digits) per second.Realize this is only refering to desktops, not peer-to-peer or mainframe.

Also, I think the limitation will be in the programing. Either way we may not live to see it.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
200 points to Witt for the pseudo-Monty Python reference!

And, yes, there are plenty of examples where right was earned without might... however, not nearly so many as where it was earned through military force.

Military force, after all, is the Christian preferred method (as well as the Jewish and Islamic method as well). Must be something to do with Abraham's nature, I guess - must've been an aggressive bastard, eh?


Which only serves to show that you don't know Moses from water hoses.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by The Cats Venm
But does might always entail military power or other shows of direct force?

Perhaps there is might in other methods as well, though that does seem to defeat the purpose of saying 'might equals right.'

What the term "Might makes right" entails is the forcing of someone to do things against his will and feeling that we are right or at least have the right because of superior power.

Something akin to the Manifest Destiny idea s popular not too long ago when we needed to appropriaste ceratain land which wasn't ours.

[The Cats Venm]

Originally posted by Radrook


What the term "Might makes right" entails is the forcing of someone to do things against his will and feeling that we are right or at least have the right because of superior power.

Something akin to the Manifest Destiny idea s popular not too long ago when we needed to appropriaste ceratain land which wasn't ours.

Actually, I know what the phrase means. That is why I said "though that does seem to defeat the purpose of saying 'might equals right'."