First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Do Artificially Intelligent robots deserve inalienable rights?
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 7/1/13
Why do so many choose to neglect the Artificial in Artificial intelligence...
50612 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 7/2/13

CLarose wrote:
I find it funny that you say that you dont doubt that AI will exist. It already does exist. It may be in its infancy but it still exists. You also believe that all human qualities cant be programmed into something thats "artificial" but the funny thing about that is that most technology is based off of how our bodies work. Why is the idea of human made sentient beings so far fetched? Its only going to take for humanity to understand more about itself. The more we understand about ourselves, the easier it will be to replicate it into something else. The only reason you dont think it would be possible to make a robot that cant operate on instinct is because you dont understand how instinct works. You say that you dont think a robot would be the best mother, best friend or lover but most humans cant even play those roles well. I think in the next 50 years or so, artificial intelligence will make very substantial improvements.in the area of instant cognition.


This thread is talking about the sort of AI that is so advanced that people in the future will contemplate giving rights to it... that's also the AI technology I was talking about in my post earlier.
I'm aware that such technology exists, they are programming robots to memorise certain things and select the best action to take from the database stored in the memory.


I had a lot of thoughts in my head to respond to you, but it's all jumbled up and don't really make sense, so I'm just going to summarise it:

I think that biological things are different from non-biological things, they are just fundamentally different. Take enzymes for example, they are the most fundamental of all things biological, they don't have a brain yet they act in away that is natural and instinctive, they will react with the right molecules and avoid the wrong molecules.
Take a computer for example, they get upgraded all the time, they don't evolve by themselves. You have to replace graphics, CPU etc. And if things get really out of date, you have to get a new motherboard.

I mean, I have no doubt that in the future, AI robots will be able to read emotions, react to scenarios and have the ability to empathise and feel sadness, but I just don't think they will be on the same level as a biological being. They can't evolve by themselves, they need a programmer to upgrade their CPU.

That's why I made my conclusion, that they won't be given the same amount of rights as humans, because they are fundamentally different from humans.
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 7/2/13


A.I. wouldn't be given any rights, period. Yes, A.I. Intelligence in the near future will be virtually indistinguishable from actual intelligence, this is a moot point. Artificial Intelligence is "Artificial." A.I. is programmed to mimic intelligence so it is completely rational to assume Artificial Intelligence will get better; meaning, less distinguishable from general intelligence. However, do not make the mistake of assuming Artificial Intelligence is actual intelligence. No matter how indistinguishable A.I. may be from general intelligence it is still Artificial.

Machine Intelligence and A.I. are two completely separate things....

50612 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 7/2/13

spacebat wrote:



A.I. wouldn't be given any rights, period. Yes, A.I. Intelligence in the near future will be virtually indistinguishable from actual intelligence, this is a moot point. Artificial Intelligence is "Artificial." A.I. is programmed to mimic intelligence so it is completely rational to assume Artificial Intelligence will get better; meaning, less distinguishable from general intelligence. However, do not make the mistake of assuming Artificial Intelligence is actual intelligence. No matter how indistinguishable A.I. may be from general intelligence it is still Artificial.

Machine Intelligence and A.I. are two completely separate things....




This is not sarcasm, but are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 7/2/13


It's difficult to tell your stance, seems you are on the fence. I am illustrating the significance of the word "Artificial" in the term "Artificial Intelligence" for those readers who seem to forget it as this is the fundamental difference between Machine Intelligence and A.I. :P

I wasn't responding directly to your post, I just happened to press quote.
9972 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / 'Merica (Used Iro...
Offline
Posted 12/24/13
Humans are just piles of flesh, so if piles of metal ever get to the point of developing emotion, even if it is primitive as a dog, then they should be given rights.
39587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
60 / USA
Offline
Posted 12/24/13
How do humans know they aren't the AI?
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/24/13 , edited 12/24/13

pirththee wrote:

How do humans know they aren't the AI?


Well the foundation we use (as far as I understand) is that humans are biological organisms who consist of matter that is self-replicating, and whoose intelligence and sense of self arises naturally in each new specimin that is bred.
There COULD of course be something we're missing, but so far, there isn't really anything to indicat that such is the case, as far as I know...
39587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
60 / USA
Offline
Posted 12/24/13
Isn't it just human bias to assume that a we have the natural intelligence.?How do we know that we're not just some dangling preposition in between an after dinner mint?You said it yourself "as far as I understand".
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/24/13

pirththee wrote:

Isn't it just human bias to assume that a we have the natural intelligence.?How do we know that we're not just some dangling preposition in between an after dinner mint?You said it yourself "as far as I understand".


We don't. But there is no evidence as of yet to suggest that such is the case.
So at best, it's a baseless speculation.
39587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
60 / USA
Offline
Posted 12/24/13
Or at the least arrogant elitism.Remember what entity is evaluating the evidence they've acknowledged?The same ones declaring themselves gifted with the Natural Intelligence.It would seem that there's an overwhelming bias and conflict of interest.In a cosmic food court humans would have to recluse themselves before rendering a verdict.I'd say the raspberry.
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/24/13

pirththee wrote:

Or at the least arrogant elitism.Remember what entity is evaluating the evidence they've acknowledged?The same ones declaring themselves gifted with the Natural Intelligence.It would seem that there's an overwhelming bias and conflict of interest.In a cosmic food court humans would have to recluse themselves before rendering a verdict.I'd say the raspberry.


I suggest you watch this. Maybe it'll give you some insight in regards to the scientific method.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzD4Rv6KREA

I wouldn't say there is a bias involved. Unless you can provide evidence or even indication to our current understanding being wrong. If you can't then your hypothesis is merely speculation.
What conflict of interest you speak of I have no idea...
39587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
60 / USA
Offline
Posted 12/24/13 , edited 12/25/13
Your assumption that "insight into scientific method "is needed is as presumptuous as your assertions about AI.Being lost in ones dogma is the poster child of objective conflict of interest.After all, we all know that we live in a self concentric universe.
13149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂╰⋃╯
Offline
Posted 12/25/13 , edited 12/26/13
Well the whole reason why they are called robots is because they can't feel emotions, they are a chunk of metal with a specific function. A robot can't do things by themselves, you have to tell it what do through programming/wiring and what not. Unless in the future you can built a humanoid brain which I highly doubt will happen. Given that a robot doesn't really have a mind of it's own, they can't really experience human rights. However I can kind of understand if a robot were to be designed to look human, that people might feel a sense of morality to not commit act against it that would be considered immoral if done on another human being. However, then again we have those japanese real life looking dolls, who is to say that the owner can't have sex with those dolls because it "looks" or "seems" immoral?
13149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂╰⋃╯
Offline
Posted 12/25/13

log10 wrote:
What if a robot is sentient and has emotions? Humans are also robots with souls, too, you know, we are just biological robots.

Yes, I'm sure one day a blender will have emotions but until that happens I'm sticking with what I just said
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.