• Should a self-aware/sentient AI have rights.
    150 replies, posted
read the bicentennial man. the answer is yes.
Also I'd like to point out that two AI can be identical in every way, but if only one of them was given sentience, then it would be the only one to have equal rights. The one without sentience would in theory be essentially the same to talk to and whatnot - there would be no discernible difference between the two. The only real difference, the important one, is that the non-sentient one is just pure machine and therefore giving it rights would be similar to giving rights to a toaster. Although alternative rights I suppose to could given in relation to its owner's well-being and whatnot.
[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] Watch this: [url]http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_berry_animations_of_unseeable_biology.html[/url] This is just a small example of why trying to deny that the human body is anything like a machine is foolish.
Self-aware, sentient some form of a robot would have be a very sophisticated one otherwise too.. like highly functional limbs and the whole body. And there would have to be quite a few of them to be seen as "robot"-citizens. It would be fucking awesome, but they would be very different from human, different traits and all that so.. Hopefully we'd learn to respect them as life companions, like we respect each other right? And if it's just some one big machine with a brain as big as a room to make it self-aware, sensing, then.. he would be already violated, strapped by the wires and shit inside some facility.
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34465973]In organisms, the building blocks become the organism. They are incorporated into the organism and grow with it.[/QUOTE] That's just irrelevant details, though. DNA is simply our method of transferring information from parent to child. Its existence doesn't automatically invalidate all other paths to achieving the same goal. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] It's like saying that using wheels to transport something between locations doesn't exist because legs can already be used to do that.
[QUOTE=Andokool12;34466552]Also I'd like to point out that two AI can be identical in every way, but if only one of them was given sentience, then it would be the only one to have equal rights. The one without sentience would in theory be essentially the same to talk to and whatnot - there would be no discernible difference between the two. The only real difference, the important one, is that the non-sentient one is just pure machine and therefore giving it rights would be similar to giving rights to a toaster. Although alternative rights I suppose to could given in relation to its owner's well-being and whatnot.[/QUOTE] you can't just "give" a machine sentience and have all other features intact those two hypothetical machines [I]are[/I] identical, and either both should have rights, or neither
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34465563]Androids do not even need to reproduce since they can potentially manufacture copies of themselves.[/QUOTE] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction"]dude[/url]
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34465973]In organisms, the building blocks become the organism. They are incorporated into the organism and grow with it.[/QUOTE] Atoms don't grow. Molecules don't grow. I don't see how a self aware Android couldn't learn how to smelt, mine and build circuits. And he could build another Android. And that Android wouldn't be the same. Beginning with little differences in the purity of the metal, ending in differences in electronic circuits. Even nowadays 2 processors of the same build are not the same due to faulty parts being tested and cut off from computation in current gen processors. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Gekkosan;34466756]Self-aware, sentient some form of a robot would have be a very sophisticated one otherwise too.. like highly functional limbs and the whole body. And there would have to be quite a few of them to be seen as "robot"-citizens. It would be fucking awesome, but they would be very different from human, different traits and all that so.. Hopefully we'd learn to respect them as life companions, like we respect each other right? And if it's just some one big machine with a brain as big as a room to make it self-aware, sensing, then.. he would be already violated, strapped by the wires and shit inside some facility.[/QUOTE] Actually they wouldn't. We are using genetic algorithms in high performance computation already. The most andvanced A.I.s nowadays are not "born" with knowledge, they learn. They would even look similar, you need 2 eyes/sensors for 3d imaging and symetry is a universal principle of lowering information requirements. Hence most organisms have a symetry axis or plane (we have a plane) [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Andokool12;34466552]Also I'd like to point out that two AI can be identical in every way, but if only one of them was given sentience, then it would be the only one to have equal rights. The one without sentience would in theory be essentially the same to talk to and whatnot - there would be no discernible difference between the two. The only real difference, the important one, is that the non-sentient one is just pure machine and therefore giving it rights would be similar to giving rights to a toaster. Although alternative rights I suppose to could given in relation to its owner's well-being and whatnot.[/QUOTE] Ignoring the fact that your thesis is self contradicting, following your logic, lobotomized humans have no rights?
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34466279]Because?[/QUOTE] Because they're not human? If we make these robots, we should be able to control them, not argue with them.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;34467925]Because they're not human? If we make these robots, we should be able to control them, not argue with them.[/QUOTE] Then they're not truly sentient.
Ok, that was badly worded, now that I read it again. I just think that a machine doesn't deserve the same rights as a human, as they're merely a creation that's made to serve humans in the first place
Only if it has emotions
self aware AI is an oxymoron in itself. its just a computer program when boiled down to its simplest form. they can only do what they are instructed to do, therefore they aren't capable of developing their own thoughts (especially abstract ones) on their own (without human intervention or involvement). this is because they are man-made.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34468812]self aware AI is an oxymoron in itself. its just a computer program when boiled down to its simplest form. they can only do what they are instructed to do, therefore they aren't capable of developing their own thoughts (especially abstract ones) on their own (without human intervention or involvement). this is because they are man-made.[/QUOTE] You know, by saying that you're implying that there is something special or magic about the way a human brain works
I don't see a reason to give robots the reason to want rights. If you program them to do work for us they will. Its only when you actually try to make them like humans and give them emotions that this becomes a problem so why give them emotions?
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34468843]You know, by saying that you're implying that there is something special or magic about the way a human brain works[/QUOTE] thank you captain obvious. please inform me of any other species that is capable of abstract thought.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;34468888]I don't see a reason to give robots the reason to want rights. If you program them to do work for us they will. Its only when you actually try to make them like humans and give them emotions that this becomes a problem so why give them emotions?[/QUOTE] that's another thing: I don't think there's ever gonna be a time we're gonna have to discuss this, because people won't program robots to want rights (I was trying to discuss a hypothetical time, where it actually happened, though)
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34468960]thank you captain obvious. please inform me of any other species that is capable of abstract thought.[/QUOTE] Wow you're the one making an illogical claim you have to back it up
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34466901][B]you can't just "give" a machine sentience and have all other features intact[/B] those two hypothetical machines [I]are[/I] identical, and either both should have rights, or neither[/QUOTE] That's this thread. This thread is hypothetical. It is based in a time in which not only do we understand the nature of our own consciousness, but we know how to create consciousness, or sentience in other words, for AI. [QUOTE=Killuah;34467770]following your logic, lobotomized humans have no rights?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say that. They were sentient human beings at one point, and in my [I]opinion[/I] it would be wrong to throw their rights out the window suddenly as a result of a lobotomy or possibly something worse. Besides, my logic on this matter applies to AI, not humans, and granted there are obviously some differences as a result of the nature in which humans and hypothetical sentient AI come to be. The idea behind a non-sentient AI that is identical to a sentient AI is that the non-sentient AI was non-sentient from the beginning, and there for always was and always will be just a machine. Although, if you changed this and "gave" it sentience, that would be similar by moral standards to the birth of a human, just like taking away its sentience is similar by moral standards to the death of a human. There is obviously an assumption that AI won't require lobotomies, as we [I]generally[/I] don't consider a lobotomy to be murder. [QUOTE=Killuah;34467770]Ignoring the fact that your thesis is self contradicting[/QUOTE] There really isn't a contradiction, but if you feel there is point it out so I can see it or clarify it.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34469100]Wow you're the one making an illogical claim you have to back it up[/QUOTE] what's illogical about it? i thought the answer would be obvious but apparently you're a bit slow.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34469130]what's illogical about it? i thought the answer would be obvious but apparently you're a bit slow.[/QUOTE] Um, I don't know, maybe the fact that you just said the human brain was magic
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34469154]you just said the human brain was magic[/QUOTE] can you directly quote me on that in exact form? using the term "magic" to describe something complex is just really brutish and close-minded.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34469174]can you directly quote me on that in exact form? using the term "magic" to describe something complex is just really brutish and close-minded.[/QUOTE] You said that it was impossible for a machine to be sentient. That is implying there is something magical about humans that distinguishes their electric impulses from a computer's, or that only humans are and could ever be capable of abstract thought; which is a ridiculous assertion
I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't. You see, there is something different in a machine and a human being. A machine (we've created) is more like a 'paper-knife', meaning that they are created with a purpose and their entire existence reduces to fulfilling that purpose. I the case of human being that is not true. We do not exist to fulfil someone's specific purpose, and that is why we should treat our existence in a different way. If our existence was like that of a paper-knife, human rights could be violated for fulfilling that purpose. It is because of the non-existence of that purpose that human rights are that important. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34469211]You said that it was impossible for a machine to be sentient. That is implying there is something magical about humans that distinguishes their electric impulses from a computer's, or that only humans are and could ever be capable of abstract thought; which is a ridiculous assertion[/QUOTE] Actually, it takes a leap of faith to believe that anyone except you is sentient.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34468812]self aware AI is an oxymoron in itself. its just a computer program when boiled down to its simplest form. they can only do what they are instructed to do, therefore they aren't capable of developing their own thoughts (especially abstract ones) on their own (without human intervention or involvement). this is because they are man-made.[/QUOTE] You have no idea how computer programming works do you. Just because something is man made doesn't mean it can't be self aware or think independently. We think with electrical impulses in our brain, much like the 1/0 machine code, albeit not the same. Nature created us... so why can't we create sentient AI? [url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2092286/The-Monet-machine-Art-ificial-painter-improvises-works--surprises-creator.html"]surely this is proof enough that we can artificially create sentience.[/url]
[QUOTE=matsta;34469783]Actually, it takes a leap of faith to believe that anyone except you is sentient.[/QUOTE] True, but after making that assumption everything should be on equal footing: humans and robots alike have an equal capacity to be sentient.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34473463]True, but after making that assumption everything should be on equal footing: humans and robots alike have an equal capacity to be sentient.[/QUOTE] Actually, I find it extremely difficult to determine whether something other than humans and some animals (for example, an A.I. robot) is sentient. We have to identify something "out there" with consciousness. This step is where most things can go wrong, since a human being doesn't find consciousness "out there" with the rest of all things (like, for example, a brain). Once we find some brain process that is related to consciousness, it does take some faith to be sure that consciousness lies on that and only that specific process. Even if you see 'sings' of consciousness it doesn't mean there IS consciousness. For there could be things that appear to be conscious but are not. For example, in "wizard`"'s post the program appears to be conscious in some way, but is it? How can you know?
[QUOTE=matsta;34473888]Actually, I find it extremely difficult to determine whether something other than humans and some animals (for example, an A.I. robot) is sentient. We have to identify something "out there" with consciousness. This step is where most things can go wrong, since a human being doesn't find consciousness "out there" with the rest of all things (like, for example, a brain). Once we find some brain process that is related to consciousness, it does take some faith to be sure that consciousness lies on that and only that specific process. Even if you see 'sings' of consciousness it doesn't mean there IS consciousness. For there could be things that appear to be conscious but are not. For example, in "wizard`"'s post the program appears to be conscious in some way, but is it? How can you know?[/QUOTE] You can't, that's why you simply have to assume
[QUOTE=matsta;34469783]I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't. You see, there is something different in a machine and a human being. A machine (we've created) is more like a 'paper-knife', meaning that they are created with a purpose and their entire existence reduces to fulfilling that purpose. I the case of human being that is not true. We do not exist to fulfil someone's specific purpose, and that is why we should treat our existence in a different way. If our existence was like that of a paper-knife, human rights could be violated for fulfilling that purpose. It is because of the non-existence of that purpose that human rights are that important. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] Actually, it takes a leap of faith to believe that anyone except you is sentient.[/QUOTE] How do you propose creating a sentient, learning, capable of expanding his own programming AI that will ever only fulfill one purpose. A 'machine' that can think for itself, can learn on it's own. By limiting the machine to fit a purpose you are limiting it's sentience. You people keep talking about limiting the machine, the machine only made to fit a purpose, programming the machine so that it cannot attack humans. This makes no sense, an AI can not be sentient if we limit it in such a way. We're talking about the hypothetical situation that some day we might create an AI that thinks and acts, learns the same way we do.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34469130]what's illogical about it? i thought the answer would be obvious but apparently you're a bit slow.[/QUOTE] that's not how you debate
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.