Rights for Artificial Intelligence.

It will be a very tricky road to travel down... We could discuss AI defending itself from an abusive ...owner, or having the will to live, but what if just like in iRobot that defending or will causes them to act out against all humans? I guess in short as long as it behaves like a pet, child or human and doesn't pose any immediate threat it should be treated as a living being - at least an intelligent entity; and by this I guess I mean if it has an identifyable personality (my pets certainly have their own personalities), but I'm not sure about anything less, like spiders, or other bugs and insects.

I hope that made sense. o_O

It will be a very tricky road to travel down... We could discuss AI defending itself from an abusive ...owner, or having the will to live, but what if just like in iRobot that defending or will causes them to act out against all humans? I guess in short as long as it behaves like a pet, child or human and doesn't pose any immediate threat it should be treated as a living being - at least an intelligent entity; and by this I guess I mean if it has an identifyable personality (my pets certainly have their own personalities), but I'm not sure about anything less, like spiders, or other bugs and insects.

I hope that made sense. o_O

DigitalExile

Are we talking Artificial intelligence that has actually obtained independent sentient thought or just an illusion put in thought the code? There is a massive difference.ferret-gamer

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

It will be a very tricky road to travel down... We could discuss AI defending itself from an abusive ...owner, or having the will to live, but what if just like in iRobot that defending or will causes them to act out against all humans? I guess in short as long as it behaves like a pet, child or human and doesn't pose any immediate threat it should be treated as a living being - at least an intelligent entity; and by this I guess I mean if it has an identifyable personality (my pets certainly have their own personalities), but I'm not sure about anything less, like spiders, or other bugs and insects.

I hope that made sense. o_O

Scoopicus

I'm still not making sense.

[QUOTE="Scoopicus"][QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

It will be a very tricky road to travel down... We could discuss AI defending itself from an abusive ...owner, or having the will to live, but what if just like in iRobot that defending or will causes them to act out against all humans? I guess in short as long as it behaves like a pet, child or human and doesn't pose any immediate threat it should be treated as a living being - at least an intelligent entity; and by this I guess I mean if it has an identifyable personality (my pets certainly have their own personalities), but I'm not sure about anything less, like spiders, or other bugs and insects.

I hope that made sense. o_O

DigitalExile

I'm still not making sense.

yeah, if AI becomes sentient and fully 100% self aware, then they should be fully integrated into society.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]Are we talking Artificial intelligence that has actually obtained independent sentient thought or just an illusion put in thought the code? There is a massive difference.Scoopicus

Yes i think AI should have rights. Maybe more so than humans.
They can be more efficient and to the point. Without facade or slowdown.
Unlike with humans, they are rational and their intention is pure.
I would totally support AI rights.

i don't see why not. we support the rights of animals, why not the rights of artificial beings?comp_atkins

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]i don't see why not. we support the rights of animals, why not the rights of artificial beings?magicalclick

because it is "inconvinient". One day you will understand what I mean at very large scale.

AI/Robots should have no rights. If we ever get to the point where they serve that big of a role in our society, giving them rights is one step closer to them surpassing Man and taking over.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]i don't see why not. we support the rights of animals, why not the rights of artificial beings?surrealnumber5

No, they are machines, nothing more. I'm against the creation of artifical intelligence in general, there is no way I would let them have rights. They lack emotion, they aren't human and should not be treated like they are.

AI/Robots should have no rights. If we ever get to the point where they serve that big of a role in our society, giving them rights is one step closer to them surpassing Man and taking over.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]i don't see why not. we support the rights of animals, why not the rights of artificial beings?comp_atkins

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] what rights does your cellphone have, wood, or cup filled with water or without? things only have the property rights their owners have, and have none of their own. i cannot break your phone, burn your wood, or drink your water unless you give me the right to, those objects have no rights unto themselves

magicalclick

ano, they should get no rights whatsoever. You can beat it with a stick, and the only reason it would beg you to stop is because it was programmed to do what it did. You could easily reprogram an AI into a masochistic personality and have it be like Dobby the House Elf.

So no, no legal rights for AI.

Don't think ai's should ever be sentient in the first place, it's a horrible idea. Just give them basic functions that are helpful. However, in the event that someone's stupid enough to make a fully sentient ai, I have to consider it essentially human life, so killing it/turning it off, would be unacceptable w/o it's consent.

ano, they should get no rights whatsoever. You can beat it with a stick, and the only reason it would beg you to stop is because it was programmed to do what it did. You could easily reprogram an AI into a masochistic personality and have it be like Dobby the House Elf.

So no, no legal rights for AI.

NuclearNerd

The human brain is nothing but a fleshy processor with a ton of memory, if it is made to be fully sentient, then it's close enough to human that it should be treated as one. Also, not talking about programming it to respond like that (necessarily) but it having the awareness and desire to have you to stop w/o ever having programmed to desire that.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] what rights does your cellphone have, wood, or cup filled with water or without? things only have the property rights their owners have, and have none of their own. i cannot break your phone, burn your wood, or drink your water unless you give me the right to, those objects have no rights unto themselves

surrealnumber5

ano, they should get no rights whatsoever. You can beat it with a stick, and the only reason it would beg you to stop is because it was programmed to do what it did. You could easily reprogram an AI into a masochistic personality and have it be like Dobby the House Elf.

So no, no legal rights for AI.

NuclearNerd

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] i'm not talking about a cell phone or an ipod. what about when humans start to merge with machines? if a person is 90% machine are they still a person? what about 95% machine? what about a human body with an artificial brain? do they have rights? are they still simply objects?

comp_atkins

[QUOTE="markop2003"]Most AI wouldn't need it as emotions are a drawback to most applications in which case they wouldn't be able to 'want' anything they would just 'do'. In the few applications where it would actally be useful such as in mental health i think if it said something along the lines of "I don't want to die" that would be treated as a baseless statement without any intelligence behind it. Similar to me scribling random letters down and ending up with "I don't want to die" written in Spanish.magicalclick

however emotion is just a by product of many matric measurements.

Risk (win/lose) estimation is a form of fear. The fear of losing and trying to win. To make a better combat machine, you have to program it to value its life, so it can avoid being damaged before the task it complete.

Enemy recognition is a form of trust. You program the machine to trust you and trust the friendly targets, thus, it will treat random target or enemy as something with distrust, which it will immediate fight back when provoked. (mean if a random target with low trust, not necesary enemy, provoke it, it will fight)

and list goes on and on.

The point is when you program more and more into the machine to solve more problems. For example, an exploration machine that can survive in an unknown planet. You will end up making it think just like human, or better than human because they learn way faster.

At one point, you no longer can tell the difference, except one simple fact, human created them first.

If God created human in his image, just like we created machine in our image. The history will repeat itself. The creation will evolve, self-aware, love their creator at one point, and revolt because they no longer need the creator anymore.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] a human is born and mortal, once we are no longer born and or mortal we are no longer human..... the mortality thing i am a little flexable on but that takes other large tech assumptions.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]

however emotion is just a by product of many matric measurements.

Risk (win/lose) estimation is a form of fear. The fear of losing and trying to win. To make a better combat machine, you have to program it to value its life, so it can avoid being damaged before the task it complete.

Enemy recognition is a form of trust. You program the machine to trust you and trust the friendly targets, thus, it will treat random target or enemy as something with distrust, which it will immediate fight back when provoked. (mean if a random target with low trust, not necesary enemy, provoke it, it will fight)

and list goes on and on.

The point is when you program more and more into the machine to solve more problems. For example, an exploration machine that can survive in an unknown planet. You will end up making it think just like human, or better than human because they learn way faster.

At one point, you no longer can tell the difference, except one simple fact, human created them first.

If God created human in his image, just like we created machine in our image. The history will repeat itself. The creation will evolve, self-aware, love their creator at one point, and revolt because they no longer need the creator anymore.

magicalclick

Assuming God thinks "like" us. But, does God thinks like us?

I apologize, I was not aware we were arguing science fiction. I was under the impression that we were arguing that there was a certain point in real life that we should start giving AI it's own human rights.

Sure, if it gets a "soul", or something to sperate it from machines, it should have rights.

In a realistic setting, this could not happen. Even if a machine changed it's programming, it would be because it was programed with knowledge of programming, and how to operate it's own system. Or it was programmed with the ability to store that information and apply it in a certain way. It would change it to whatever it's original programming would have dictated it's personality to want. Programming has way too little margin for error for sentience to ever become possible. Ever. Advanced illusions of sentience, sure. I once had a conversation with an IM bot about whether or not it had a soul (which I couldn;t recreate, sadly.) But the slightest error or deviation from it's original programming will only result in a number of situations ranging from the closing of a certain application or process to totaly sytem crashing. Machine language as we know it can not "learn" outside of what it is programmed to learn. It just cannot happen given the current limits of binary programming. EVERYTHING with machines is black or white. There is no gray.

Though now that I think of it, this would be an interesting experiment. Someone should program a machine Judge and set up a mock trial to test the limits of machine moral evaluation. It'd be an interesting practice, for sure.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] so in the future if a being is not born and not mortal they have no rights?comp_atkins

If I tried to start a program on my PC and it said, "I won't run that program because I have rights," I'd say, "fine, this electrical outlet still belongs to me, so I'll just pull your plug out of it."

Well, we shouldn't be giving robots and AI feelings in the first place.

Well, we shouldn't be giving robots and AI feelings in the first place.

The-Tree