First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
Post Reply Should AI be able to give birth?
16755 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 4/21/16 , edited 4/21/16
I know this might sound odd but......how would the AI feel about giving birth to a human?
they would see human mothers giving birth to babies of there own kind and they would be incapable of that.

Is it ethically right to make AI robots give birth to human babies?
20789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 4/21/16 , edited 4/21/16

Ma5hedPotatoes wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:

Why?


AI could never be sentient, but that's another topic.


In your opinion.

Its to soon to say it can or can't its all hypothetical now. (like this HYPOTHETICAL question huehue)

There are just as many scientists and Engineers who would disagree with you as there are that would agree.




Also why? because anything that can act on its own and think for itself should be allowed to reproduce you can't treat such an advanced AI as an item or a toy to use that's unfair and foolish.


Reminds me of fallout 4 Synths with people that think all AI even if sentient or close shouldn't have rights...and that shit was fucked up.


That being said if we are going to a future where people won't give such AI/Robots freedom i see a real life Railroad opening up and i know who i will be joining in that situation



You're spouting nonsense. Computers and biologie are NOTHING alike. Computers are non-dynamic, they work according to human laws and they're linear. Computers are programmed by humans, they have no will, they don't act on their own and don't think for themselves. They act according to their program, the ones and zeros and coding you write. They don't make decisions by themselves, they don't experience anything and NO coding and biologie are not comparable.
Humans understand coding, humans don't understand the consciousness, we don't know where it came from and we can't reproduce it. What we do know is that brains and consciousness are dynamic, don't follow any program and are not linear. That's why all humans are different, that's why all our brains are different and that's why our decisions and reactions are different. Computers don't experience, humans and animals do. Our conciousness isn't a program or code because coding was invented by humans. Brains are chemical reactions, computer coding isn't. You can't for example put a flame (which is a chemical reaction) in a computer. You can analyse it, make a copy of it by giving certain movements and reactions a certain code but no we can't put a chemical reaction in a computer.
There are scientists that believe it's possible but that doesn't make it to be true, there are also scientists who believe in a soul and some don't. Not all scientists are right.

AI cannot be sentient.



Haha... Humans are just chemical reactions we function without free will but by reactions much like a computer runs via programming.

No Computers don't think for themselves YET.

However we can replicate such a thing in the form of code and it would more or less function the same way and if that isn't then considered sentient then neither should we because both of us would be reactions programmed by Nature and one by man.

By using your own wording just because you believe it can't exist doesn't make it right.

Plus you forget you are using the logic that such a thing would be 100% computer you do realize if such a being were to exist it would be a mix of biological and technology.

In the end its to soon to say whether its possible or not we can only theorize and put those theories into practice as we further our understanding of neuroscience,programming and science in general.
Banned
6934 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
In a basket of de...
Offline
Posted 4/21/16
I'm for anything that will hasten the extinction of the freak show that the human race has become.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/21/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


Dariamus wrote:

A definitive statement that can never be proven true, only false.

Science is full of things in this position: it is very, very difficult to prove something cannot exist. It takes only a single instance to prove something can exist. The only possible way to make your argument would be by writing a very narrow definition of sentience such that anything not human is excluded. Even then, you risk the excluded parties disagreeing.



Better said one cannot prove something does not exist without providing axioms. Axioms themselves can only be validated or invalidated and not proved or disproved.


I'll defer to your wording.

I always have difficulty expressing my thoughts eloquently and/or concisely.

20789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 4/21/16

Dariamus wrote:


PrinceJudar wrote:


Dariamus wrote:

A definitive statement that can never be proven true, only false.

Science is full of things in this position: it is very, very difficult to prove something cannot exist. It takes only a single instance to prove something can exist. The only possible way to make your argument would be by writing a very narrow definition of sentience such that anything not human is excluded. Even then, you risk the excluded parties disagreeing.



Better said one cannot prove something does not exist without providing axioms. Axioms themselves can only be validated or invalidated and not proved or disproved.


I'll defer to your wording.

I always have difficulty expressing my thoughts eloquently and/or concisely.



and here i am and i can't understand these words Axioms etc...then again English isn't my strong suit (even though its my primary language)
qwueri 
16462 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 4/21/16

Ryulightorb wrote:


Haha... Humans are just chemical reactions we function without free will but by reactions much like a computer runs via programming.


That's not not really how either humans or ai works. We're not even to the point of properly understanding how the human brain works, beyond that its a mixture of stored memory and motor functions in regions based on observed electical differences. Chemicals affect how the brain reacts, but do not necessarily dictate the decision based from previous experiences. To say humans have no free will disregards huge portions of culture, from language to art to imagination to preferences.

Abstract thought is something we have yet to reproduce or even fully understand the mechanical foundation of. Without abstract thought, AI will act purely on programmed objectives, rather than shaping its own.
20789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 4/21/16

qwueri wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


Haha... Humans are just chemical reactions we function without free will but by reactions much like a computer runs via programming.


That's not not really how either humans or ai works. We're not even to the point of properly understanding how the human brain works, beyond that its a mixture of stored memory and motor functions in regions based on observed electical differences. Chemicals affect how the brain reacts, but do not necessarily dictate the decision based from previous experiences. To say humans have no free will disregards huge portions of culture, from language to art to imagination to preferences.

Abstract thought is something we have yet to reproduce or even fully understand the mechanical foundation of. Without abstract thought, AI will act purely on programmed objectives, rather than shaping its own.




It was a mere simplified version.

I say humans have no free will but i cannot prove that, that is more of an opinion.

Posted 4/21/16

stars201 wrote:

Delete this


^^^^^
qwueri 
16462 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 4/21/16

Ryulightorb wrote:



It was a mere simplified version.

I say humans have no free will but i cannot prove that, that is more of an opinion.



Opinion based on what? Seems like a gross under appreciation for how the human brain works.

Should humans sufficiently replicate an abstract, self-aware conciousness through AI, what's to saw it would desire to replicate, so much replicate with humans? Should it ever actually come to that, I do think humanity will have recreated itself artificially.
Posted 4/21/16

Haha... Humans are just chemical reactions

That's pretty much what I was saying...


we function without free will but by reactions much like a computer runs via programming.

That statement is still open for debate. There's no concrete evidence that we don't have a freewill and even if we don't we are conscious, computers aren't. We don't run a program, our brains are much more complicated then computers why do you compare them? Computers don't dream, don't have wishes, don't show any form of real emotion, don't have a personality. Computers are just coding, you can program them what to do and they'll constantly repeat that progress. No-one programmed humans (or God did if you're a religious person).


No Computers don't think for themselves YET.


That's your opinion.


However we can replicate such a thing in the form of code and it would more or less function the same way and if that isn't then considered sentient then neither should we because both of us would be reactions programmed by Nature and one by man.


Copying a flame by code to function the same way on a computer program doesn't make the actual flame less real. Nature didn't program us, evolution, survival-instinct, coincidence and self-awareness caused us to be what we are today.


Plus you forget you are using the logic that such a thing would be 100% computer you do realize if such a being were to exist it would be a mix of biological and technology.


What do you even mean by that? Biological brains in robots? Biological bodies with hard drives in their heads?


In the end its to soon to say whether its possible or not we can only theorize and put those theories into practice as we further our understanding of neuroscience,programming and science in general.


Well then, why do you discard the possibility of there being a soul? According to you it's to early to say anything is possible, by your own logic it's also to early to discard the existence of the soul. The soul is one of many possible explanations for our own conciousness and self being.
20789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 4/21/16

qwueri wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:



It was a mere simplified version.

I say humans have no free will but i cannot prove that, that is more of an opinion.



Opinion based on what? Seems like a gross under appreciation for how the human brain works.

Should humans sufficiently replicate an abstract, self-aware conciousness through AI, what's to saw it would desire to replicate, so much replicate with humans? Should it ever actually come to that, I do think humanity will have recreated itself artificially.


There is alot of speculation and research out there that suggests free will does not exist. ..whilst there is just as much to say it does so i have my opinion based on what i know an i believe there is free will in a sense however that free will is not completely free it's partially like an illusion since most choices are made first subconsciously without our control.

So i guess i need to change my wording i do believe in free will however not to the extent others do.

Nothing is to suggest it would desire that this was only a hypothetical.
20789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 4/21/16

Ma5hedPotatoes wrote:


Haha... Humans are just chemical reactions

That's pretty much what I was saying...


we function without free will but by reactions much like a computer runs via programming.

That statement is still open for debate. There's no concrete evidence that we don't have a freewill and even if we don't we are conscious, computers aren't. We don't run a program, our brains are much more complicated then computers why do you compare them? Computers don't dream, don't have wishes, don't show any form of real emotion, don't have a personality. Computers are just coding, you can program them what to do and they'll constantly repeat that progress. No-one programmed humans (or God did if you're a religious person).


No Computers don't think for themselves YET.


That's your opinion.


However we can replicate such a thing in the form of code and it would more or less function the same way and if that isn't then considered sentient then neither should we because both of us would be reactions programmed by Nature and one by man.


Copying a flame by code to function the same way on a computer program doesn't make the actual flame less real. Nature didn't program us, evolution, survival-instinct, coincidence and self-awareness caused us to be what we are today.


Plus you forget you are using the logic that such a thing would be 100% computer you do realize if such a being were to exist it would be a mix of biological and technology.


What do you even mean by that? Biological brains in robots? Biological bodies with hard drives in their heads?


In the end its to soon to say whether its possible or not we can only theorize and put those theories into practice as we further our understanding of neuroscience,programming and science in general.


Well then, why do you discard the possibility of there being a soul? According to you it's to early to say anything is possible, by your own logic it's also to early to discard the existence of the soul. The soul is one of many possible explanations for our own conciousness and self being.


It's your opinion to that they won't and i don't discard it there is a possibility however i highly doubt it.

Also what i mean is the brain doesn't necessarily need to be 100% biological or 100% machine as we proceed we will be able to blend the two more then we can now.

I disagree with what your saying but you may be right who knows better to attempt it and fail then not to attempt at all.
16413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / east coast. Let t...
Offline
Posted 4/21/16 , edited 4/21/16

wolfbrother0 wrote:

how full of shit can you be? if an AI gains the ability to think and feel it is sentient, it is alive because of that fact, you can spout bull shit about biology as much as you like but it only deals with [LIFE AS WE KNOW IT/i] . Based off of what we have already encountered.
AI would naturally redefine life, it is even theorised that such other types of lifeforms could exist. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/05/stephen-hawking-on-non-carbon-based-alien-life.html

Are you truly that slow or just drawing a blank on the ethical implications of sentient technology?

Machines do become alive once they are self-aware, just a kind of life that we have not come across. Again your attitude is the kind that would get us all killed if AI's ever come into being.


Wow. Thanks for openly insulting me and telling me I'm stupid for having an opinion that differs from yours.. I'm sure you're an expert on the subject. I bet you're almost as good at this as talking to people. I'm done here. You've ruined this argument.
13042 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/21/16
NO!! becasue then this happens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2dJEBTY5D0
710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Rin Matsuoka
Offline
Posted 4/21/16

GrandMasterTime wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:

Why are there two?! My head.


i don't even know! When i looked there were 3

WTF


Protect me, I need an adult, an adult mod!


SOMEBODY CALL....THE DRAGON MOD!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.