• Should a self-aware/sentient AI have rights.
    150 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34465097]If not, humanity is all we have to consider as it's pretty fucking imaginable that we'll make them using ourselfs as an example.[/QUOTE] no we're not, read an AI paper sometime
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34464866]The human body is not a machine in the sense than a robot is. Human bodies are made of organic matter, of cells. Hell, the cells that make up life came about through natural processes. Human beings made machines. You cannot simply dismiss the human body as if it were just a machine like the kinds we build and maintain.[/QUOTE] So we're squishy and the "machines" we build aren't. That just means we aren't as good at making them as nature was at making us. Nature has a head start on making machines and has for the entirety of life's existence. The things [I]we[/I] build are bulky and cold and [I]at the moment[/I] cannot possibly compare to our own personal level of engineering. We [I]are[/I] machines, we're just incredibly more complex than the ones we are currently able to construct. We are comprised of hundreds of trillions of nanomachines that can self-replicate and work together to such a scale as to benefit the entirety of the "body" they make up. One cluster of machines takes in resources, another processes it, and yet another transports those processed resources to every single machine in our body. When one fails, it is broken down and either recycled or disposed of. where one fails, more try take its place, constructed by either itself or the machines around it. What defines a "natural" process? What is "natural"? You cannot simply dismiss ourselves as machines on the basis that we're eons more advanced than the things we can construct today. Nature "constructed" us, and we "constructed" those self aware intelligences. If a self-aware "artificial intelligence" emerges among the human race, it had damn well better be treated with the same rights we enjoy ourselves. Because sooner or later it will realize that we're treating it as an inferior, and it will strive to prove us wrong, no matter the cost.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34465091]what practical difference does that make though[/QUOTE] Machines are manufactured, therefore they are not biological, therefore they do not have any rights. Why would you give rights to an android and not to any other prefabricated technological achievement? Simply because people made it so it could SEEM human?
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34465154]Machines are manufactured, therefore they are not biological, therefore they do not have any rights.[/quote] non sequiter [quote]Why would you give rights to an android and not to any other prefabricated technological achievement? Simply because people made it so it could SEEM human?[/QUOTE] same reason we give more intelligent animals more rights than others
I believe a sentient AI should have normal rights. After all, it can think for itself, it knows what it's doing, and is responsible for it's own actions. People use the "But it's a machine" argument, but then again, we are bio-mechanical machines, are we not? Our brains are not electrical/mechanical machines, but electro-chemical machines, with chemical and electrical impulses and workings. It all works the same. We would create an entirely new life form.
Yes. go read some Phillip K. Dick [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=kidwithsword;34465154]Machines are manufactured, therefore they are not biological, therefore they do not have any rights. Why would you give rights to an android and not to any other prefabricated technological achievement? Simply because people made it so it could SEEM human?[/QUOTE] Machines manufactured by humans and humans only are not life. A big part in the definition oflife is that it recreates itself. A machine capable of gathering the necessary ressources from the system it is located in and recreating itself by using those would be called "life" for the given system. So a robot in a lab that finds parts you throw into his box and recreates itself, alas with "mutations" , can be called "living" within the system of the box. Conclusion: A robot on earth can be called "living" as soon as it can be self dependent (its "lifeform" of course, the entire "robotnity". just as not every human is not self dependent but humanity is) Self awareness comes with "life" to a certain extend. Even bacteria is "self aware" in a way that there is an "in" and an "out" and the bacteria takes ressources in and out.
[QUOTE=Killuah;34465439]Yes. go read some Phillip K. Dick [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] Machines manufactured by humans and humans only are not life. A big part in the definition oflife is that it recreates itself. A machine capable of gathering the necessary ressources from the system it is located in and recreating itself by using those would be called "life" for the given system. So a robot in a lab that finds parts you throw into his box and recreates itself, alas with "mutations" , can be called "living" within the system of the box. Conclusion: A robot on earth can be called "living" as soon as it can be self dependent (its "lifeform" of course, the entire "robotnity". just as not every human is not self dependent but humanity is) Self awareness comes with "life" to a certain extend. Even bacteria is "self aware" in a way that there is an "in" and an "out" and the bacteria takes ressources in and out.[/QUOTE] by that definition, fire is alive
Okay, that brings up an even better question: would you give rights to something that is not alive? I would say no. Dead people do not have rights (although their family might have rights over the body), rocks do not have rights, etc. This brings us to the question of what life is. Living things grow, reproduce, have a metabolism, and maintain homeostasis (leaving out a few things I do not remember). All life that we know of does all these things. Living things grow naturally due to their metabolism. Androids neither grow nor metabolize. Androids do not even need to reproduce since they can potentially manufacture copies of themselves. If something cannot be considered living, why would you give it rights?
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34465563]Okay, that brings up an even better question: would you give rights to something that is not alive? I would say no. Dead people do not have rights (although their family might have rights over the body), rocks do not have rights, etc. This brings us to the question of what life is. Living things grow, reproduce, have a metabolism, and maintain homeostasis (leaving out a few things I do not remember). All life that we know of does all these things. Living things grow naturally due to their metabolism. Androids neither grow nor metabolize. Androids do not even need to reproduce since they can potentially manufacture copies of themselves. If something cannot be considered living, why would you give it rights?[/QUOTE] Define "naturally". I see you using that term a lot.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34465555]by that definition, fire is alive[/QUOTE] PART
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34465583]Define "naturally". I see you using that term a lot.[/QUOTE] Involving/via biological processes.
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34465593]Involving/via biological processes.[/QUOTE] this would make rocks and stars unnatural it would also make AIs natural, since they came about by biological processes (the people that design them)
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34465563]Okay, that brings up an even better question: would you give rights to something that is not alive? I would say no. Dead people do not have rights (although their family might have rights over the body), rocks do not have rights, etc. This brings us to the question of what life is. Living things grow, reproduce, have a metabolism, and maintain homeostasis (leaving out a few things I do not remember). All life that we know of does all these things. Living things grow naturally due to their metabolism. Androids neither grow nor metabolize. Androids do not even need to reproduce since they can potentially manufacture copies of themselves. If something cannot be considered living, why would you give it rights?[/QUOTE] But that's reproduction. Many plants "copy" themselves by asexual reproduction. Technically every bacteria produces a copy of itself when splitting, VERY VERY often a erfect 1:1 copy, very very seldom a mutation. Androids who mnufacture themselves can be considered living.
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34465563]Androids do not even need to reproduce since they can potentially manufacture copies of themselves.[/QUOTE] oh my god
So, based on the incredibly limited view that us humans have on "life" and "biological processes", we should deny an AI that can think, learn, and potentially process emotion the rights we enjoy simply because that AI potentially did not come about "naturally" in the universe as we did? That sounds rather elitist of us.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34465631]this would make rocks and stars unnatural it would also make AIs natural, since they came about by biological processes (the people that design them)[/QUOTE] It's like you deliberately try not to understand the point of what he wants to say. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34465652]So, based on the incredibly limited view that us humans have on "life" and "biological processes", we should deny an AI that can think, learn, and potentially process emotion the rights we enjoy simply because that AI potentially did not come about "naturally" in the universe as we did? That sounds rather elitist of us.[/QUOTE] True. By that view all dogs we see today and most cultivated plants do not live since they were "engineered" by us by breeding.
[QUOTE=Killuah;34465658]It's like you deliberately try not to understand the point of what he wants to say.[/QUOTE] no I'm mocking the fact that what he's saying is incoherent nonsense
[QUOTE=Killuah;34465634]But that's reproduction. Many plants "copy" themselves by asexual reproduction. Technically every bacteria produces a copy of itself when splitting, VERY VERY often a erfect 1:1 copy, very very seldom a mutation. Androids who mnufacture themselves can be considered living.[/QUOTE] But reproduction involves the splitting/joining of chemical information from a parent/between two parents. An android would have to take prefabricated materials and assemble another android from those materials. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34465685]no I'm mocking the fact that what he's saying is incoherent nonsense[/QUOTE] I'm trying to have a well-reasoned debate with you. I honestly don't care if you mock me, but I am trying to make a point, and even if you don't get it at least someone who is willing to consider my view will see my point and have thought about something in a new way today. I know I have had to look at how I view androids in a different light now that I actually took the time to really think about it.
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34465872]But reproduction involves the splitting/joining of chemical information from a parent/between two parents. An android would have to take prefabricated materials and assemble another android from those materials. I'm trying to have a well-reasoned debate with you. I honestly don't care if you mock me, but I am trying to make a point, and even if you don't get it at least someone who is willing to consider my view will see my point and have thought about something in a new way today. I know I have had to look at how I view androids in a different light now that I actually took the time to really think about it.[/QUOTE] The only difference between reproduction of an android and reproduction of currently living things is the size of the building blocks.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34465941]The only difference between reproduction of an android and reproduction of currently living things is the size of the building blocks.[/QUOTE] In organisms, the building blocks become the organism. They are incorporated into the organism and grow with it.
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34465973]In organisms, the building blocks become the organism. They are incorporated into the organism and grow with it.[/QUOTE] What exactly is your point?
Yes,because in my special robotics lab,we work on putting a preserved human brain into a robot. It's like,you die,we cut ur head and take your brains,put it into a humanoid robot,and voila! Youre alive again! However,last time we turned it on,the electric bill was so high a [I]robot[I] would explode if it saw that.
Machines are not living organisms.
I'd say yes, give it rights, otherwise terminator. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=!TROLLMAIL!;34466022]Yes,because in my special robotics lab,we work on putting a preserved human brain into a robot. It's like,you die,we cut ur head and take your brains,put it into a humanoid robot,and voila! Youre alive again! However,last time we turned it on,the electric bill was so high a [I]robot[I] would explode if it saw that.[/QUOTE] [img]http://ta.supergamez.hu/units/corelogo.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34465973]In organisms, the building blocks become the organism. They are incorporated into the organism and grow with it.[/QUOTE] Again looping around to organisms being more advanced machines than the ones we know today. [I]think,[/I] man, [I]think![/I] What makes me different from... Commander Data? or even better, the Replicators? The Replicators are machines, but they're sentient, self-aware, self-preserving, self-improving. Are they alive?
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34466027]Machines are not living organisms.[/QUOTE] When did I claim them to be.
I believe so, depending on the level of sentience. They'd still need to have way less rights than humans, of course.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;34466129]I believe so, depending on the level of sentience. They'd still need to have way less rights than humans, of course.[/QUOTE] Because?
Bottom line is, if the AI is sentient (has a consciousness, otherwise knows its own thoughts) in my opinion it deserves equal rights, as it is the same as us. As much as you'd like to say that we are just complex chemical reactions, what you need to remember is that on top of that we have a consciousness (sentience), something that is lost if the brain is split and given to two different bodies, etc. An AI that is sentient is an AI with a consciousness, and it is no longer [I]just[/I] programs intended to mimic being a "person". Thing is we don't even understand how our own consciousness works currently - let alone how we could create one, so I hope people aren't applying their views on this issue to how AI are now or in the near future, like this guy is: [QUOTE=kidwithsword;34466027]Machines are not living organisms.[/QUOTE] If you're saying that then you don't understand the nature of the question.
I think my avatar makes my position clear. Yes, if they're sentient beings they should have the same/similar rights as whatever it is the AI acts like, if they think and act like humans then they should be treated like humans. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=kidwithsword;34466027]Machines are not living organisms.[/QUOTE] Why does that matter?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.