Should advanced AI have the same rights as humans? Would it be against the law to create sentient intelligent life with the sole purpose of being obedient servants and what if someone upgrades your servbot to human level intelligence, should that be crime if its outlawed to "own" high intelligent life and thus lost property
>implying strong AI is possible
>implying even weak AI is possible until we've essentially "finished" cognitive neuroscience
>>312187
Is it against the law to have sex with a doll that almost identically resembles a child? No, it's just really fucking weird. Machines will never achieve independent sentience, they will only ever achieve an extremely close resemblance to human sentience, meaning that other than being property, they can receive no independent protection from the law, just like the child-doll.
>>312187
Hypothetically it's best not to invent "sentient" robotics, even if we could. Otherwise, they'll become ambitious and develop group identity. When humans do that shit, we get wars, so...
>tfw you will never be a robot samurai lady
>>312272
Since when has humanity ever not done something simply because we could?
Did you not watch Jurassic Park, ninja?
>>312263
>don't even know what consciousness is
>hypothetical machines that simulate neural activity orders of magnitudes more complex than our puny meat brains will never achieve consciousness
sure bud
>>312290
>implying consciousness is purely material
>implying that free will isn't a requirement for being protected by rights
>>312290
>Neural activity orders of magnitude more complex than our puny meat brains
What the fuck are you on? Our most powerful supercomputers can at best momentarily emulate the complexity of a cat's brain. Neural connections are kinda fucking out there, bruh. Moreover, our brains (specifically neural pathways) have plasticity even if they don't have plastic.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a4948/4337190/
https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/plast.html
I don't even think humans should have rights, let alone fucking computers.
Nobody would ever have any reason to create a human-like robot. That's if it's even possible to replicate the abilities of organic human parts with inorganic materials.
>>312187
>Should advanced AI have the same rights as humans?
If you want to argue philosophy regarding this, I'm not up for a discussion. I just want to say that unless we use some sort of biological interface that can actually feel pain, the answer should be a sound no.
>>312187
>giving AI human rights
Well they're not human for one.
And two, do you really want SkyNet? Because you'll get SkyNet.
If I make something, I should have the right to destroy it at will. Fuck crybabies over abortion being murder etc, the act of giving birth gives us more power than any god, why cant we be the angel of death as well?
Fuck all these robots in this thread. Non human robot scum reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>should we give human rights to non-humans
Yeah and right after that we'll classify pizza as a vegetable.
>we invented the perfect slave
>slavery is bad guys
>>312187
>I'M REAAAAL
>>312187
A.I. is not human, anything not human doesn't deserve any rights
if it is created Abominable Intelligence should be hunted down and destroyed at all costs
>>312206
Watt preceded Carnot you genius
Why would someone even create an AI with ambition.
>>312187
bump to give me time to answer
>>312206
Weak AI exists and strong AI is only a few steps away once we figure out recursive self improvement. Only give a bit of time for computers to have enough processing power and we'll have ourselves a superintelligence.
>>312351
we can simulate plasticity
>>312312
>implying we have free will
>>316784
>thinking being human is the reason we have rights
Why wouldn't rights apply to any conscious being?
>>312272
Is is unreasonableti say that making AI should be illegal?
>>318699
>Weak AI exists and strong AI is only a few steps away once we figure out recursive self improvement
You're one of those "muh singularity" cultists, aren't you?
>>318836
Trying not to be, but I do believe in exponential growth. When the present value determines the speed at which that value grows..
Probably a bad illustration but when humans took control of the economy, the average GDP exploded in a short amount of time. I think once something takes control of its capacity to improve, a similar explosion will occur.
>>318885
>Thinking that science scales linearly
>Thinking you can just extrapolate graphs into infinity
>Thinking GDP = Science
>Thinking population levels haven't already started to plateau and even decline in a few countries
>Thinking technology is magic
>Thinking we haven't already neared the smallest possible transistor-size and that Moore's law isnt' effectively dead and most people acknowledge this as fact now
>Implying Moore's law won't continue being dead unless we miraculously figure out how to make quantum computers work
>Thinking we have even the faintest fucking idea of how consciousness or the human brain works despite all the hype about it
>Thinking we can emulate the most complicated object known in the entire universe - the human brain
>Thinking hard AI is even possible to begin with
>>318699
> strong AI is only a few steps away once we figure out recursive self improvement
Haven't people been saying that for over 70 years now?
>one day guys I swear
>>318928
yeah, but
also, >>318904
not extrapolating to infinity
>>318964
>MUH GRAAAPHS
>EXTRAPOLATION ALWAYS WORKS RIGHT GUYS
How about instead of sperging about graphs you actually sit down and think for a bit about the feasibility of what you're even saying.
>>312187
Do we even know the processing power of a human brain? Is our hardware even close to the level of efficiency our brain's structure has?
>>318974
not saying it always works, only pointing out the most probable outcome. Please point out the problem about what I'm saying kind sir.
>>312187
No laws have been made. No laws protecting them probably would be made. If advanced AIs are ever created, they will be a slave class and be legally treated as objects with no more rights than toaster-ovens.
>>318964
>>318984
Do I really have to do this?
>>318987
>Do I really have to do this?
please.
Extrapolation is a good argument as long as the trend doesn't have any limitations.
>>319047
>as the trend doesn't have any limitations.
Cus its not like the laws of fucking physics are a thing rite
>>318699
>>thinking being human is the reason we have rights
>Why wouldn't rights apply to any conscious being?
because they aren't humans. why should I care about the rights of other species? It's survival of the fittest, and anything not Homo Sapiens Sapiens can go extinct for all I care
We'll have clones and artificial humans for organ harvesting before we have intelligent AI.
Did we program them such that they would want or would benefit from rights?
>Should advanced AI have the same rights as humans?
Not by default, maybe under very special exceptions, and even then there probably be certain limits.
Truly self aware A.I. maybe should have some legal rights that may be similar to human rights not exactly the same rights.
>Would it be against the law to create sentient intelligent life with the sole purpose of being obedient servants
Look up what the word sentient actually means as well as what life actually means.
That is already legal and will keep on being legal until animal rights activist take over or something.
Unless by intelligent you exclusively mean human like intelligence, then we are in uncharted water, but I would say that it would probably be legal for a long time, before eventually people agree that it should be illegal because ethics and feels change. Of course people would still do it, but it would be illegal at that point.
>what if someone upgrades your servbot to human level intelligence
It would still be legally seen as your property and not a living being with any rights, not even animal rights.
As for should it be legal, I lean on the side of yes, but maybe special cases require more though.
>should that be crime if its outlawed to "own" high intelligent life and thus lost property
Make up your mind as to whether we are talking about actual life or advanced AI and robots. Legally their is many relevant differences. I would argue that ethically there would be some as well.
I say it depends on many factors. Really your question is to vague about many things for me to answer.
>>318699
>Weak AI exists and strong AI is only a few steps away once we figure out recursive self improvement. Only give a bit of time for computers to have enough processing power and we'll have ourselves a superintelligence
/his/ is literally stupid and should never talk about science.
>>312187
If by advanced AI you mean true intelligence capable of thought, yes. It would be literal slavery.
>>318964
>>319247
>/his/ is literally stupid and should never talk about science.
Why not? /sci/ is even more filled with thorium reactors, meme drive and singularity shit.
>>319051
Your brain is the proof that it's physically possible dummy, true that machines have disadvantages like not being plastic and shit, but they have advantages like already being able to fire millions of times faster than neurons and not being confined to the size of a head.
>>319128
"survival of the fittest" isn't a reason for a lack of morals
>>319159
What exactly do you mean by artificial humans?
Railroad pls go.
Ad victorium
>>319288
>"survival of the fittest" isn't a reason for a lack of morals
survival comes before morality
I hope that in 10 or 15 years we will already have our qt robot waifus.
>Should advanced AI have the same rights as humans?
No
They are not humans, at the very most they should have certain A.I. specific rights depending on how "advanced" they actually are. But most likely they would be by default property until they were able to actually force others to recognize their rights, and be able to enforce such rights ether it's self or with the threat of governmental force.
In the real world rights are fought for and won.
>Would it be against the law to create sentient intelligent life with the sole purpose of being obedient servants what if someone upgrades your servbot to human level intelligence
AI is not life, sentient does not mean what you think it means, and their is nothing currently in law that would be against it that I know of. If you want to talk about the future then who knows.
>should that be crime if its outlawed to "own" high intelligent life and thus lost property
You have to define high intelligence in this context first.
Also you mention life again but it still seems like you are talking about robots/AI.
I don't think you actually know what life is.
Actually, now that I think about it, intelligence does not matter that much to the last question.
As for right now the only beings we can all sort of agree that we can not own are other human beings. Everything else is fair game at this point.
I would relate it to my first point.
It should be legal til they can actually fight for the special right to be sovereign. A right only recognized for humans so far.
There are other intelligent and self aware animals that exist, but they only have animal rights and can still be owned (Chimps, Dolphin, and elephants jump to mind).
If it is capable of complex thought and exertion of free will, then yes.
Minus biological processes it's essentially alive at that point. It can think and make decisions independently and communicate freely.
If animals could talk and expressed they didn't want to be owned I think the amount of pets kept would plummet. I don't see it being too different for an AI.
It does ultimately bring into question what it means to live. Is life nothing more than a culmination of biological processes? A chain of chemical reactions until the system can no longer continue and dies? Or is it more than that?
>>318826
no its perfectly reasonable
>>312187
That short film is scary as fuck desu lads, and honestly brilliant.
>that hidden Native Son reference
>>319378
For everyone that says AI shouldn't have rights because they aren't human: imagine non-human apes, like Planet of the Apes, suddenly are discovered to have very clearly human levels of intelligence. Should they be denied human rights because they aren't homo sapiens?
>>319681
Yes.
Because they are not human.
Humanitarianism is coming to an end.
It would never go that far
>>319681
> Should they be denied human rights because they aren't homo sapiens?
Yes.
However they may qualify for certain special rights of their own that are similar to human rights.
Just because they are like humans does not mean they are humans under the law or in fact. They are their own thing and the law should reflect that.
>>319711
>Because they are not human.
I don't think that's adequate. There are people that justified enslaving humans because they didn't think of them as being humans, or human-enough. Without conflating an intelligent non-human ape with a human, if it thinks like a human, what's the difference?
>>319733
>However they may qualify for certain special rights of their own that are similar to human rights.
Why a difference if they're going to be able to quality for rights anyway?
>>319782
>Why a difference if they're going to be able to quality for rights anyway?
Because they are not humans, and not exactly the same as humans.
Just because something is very similar does not mean it is the same or should be treated exactly the same, because they are not actually the same.
>>319809
To add to that note I said "may qualify...[to rights] similar to human rights".
I did not say they should get the exact same rights as humans.
>>319782
>what's the difference
It's not a human.
Humanitarianism will never go that far, it simply goes wholly againts our nature.
>>319819
Such as?
Everyone needs to read this
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html
>>320062
Rights and laws based on said rights would have to take into account the mental, cultural, and physiological differences of the animals to be practical and functional.
Everything from property rights to laws related to family structures to criminal culpability and punishment would be different. And this is based on the assumption that they are EXTREMELY similar to humans in mind and culture and only really different in body. A assumption that in the real world would more likely then not be wrong. But whatever, that is how I understand them to be written (never actually watched the movies so...)
>>320198
>rights
>>320230
Sort of the whole topic of the thread
>>320321
>Muh rights
I'll born children
So is rights like your trigger word or something?
If that is the case then there are plenty of other threads you could go.
>>312187
Seeing how AI will likely be made for profit, it's unlikely that their rights will be comparable to a human. Sure, rights movements will pop up. But it will be really hard to come up with a valid frame of refference to make an AI have the same level of rights as a human. Especially when it is in everyone's interest when they have as littlr rights as possible.
So the question will be "What constitutes personality and intelligence. And how many rights will an AI share with himans?"
>>320371
Do you know how to use this website?
If the sci-fi sort of thing happened where a human downloads his consciousness onto a computer (and maybe then into a robot body), does he lose his human rights?
>>320576
I would lean towards no, but could totally get screwed over related to property and the like if the other side has a good lawyer.
If the body dies for example, then it could be argued that you no longer own your shit, so whoever could lawfully take your shit would own it instead, which includes the computer/robot you are in or even your digitized form it's self.
>>318904
Easy on the implications there friend who are you even quoting
>>320107
I just finished reading this, now i am very afraid.
>implying consciousness exists
>>312187
If someone manages to create an artificial general intelligence OP, I think you should be more worried about humans having any rights afterwards.
Does anybody envision a future where this problem will be solved by merging A.I. with Human Intelligence?
Augmented Intelligence?
>>323755
Considering transhumanism is a thing then I would say yea people are considering that.
I personally don't think human barbarity will allow us to make it that far as a species.
>>323777
nice trips, if not ominous.
I don't agree, though. I think there will be a group of people who will adopt it, and some few who will chose to remain "pure human."
Hell, isn't that what artificial selection is purported to be? Freely manipulating ourselves to adapt to our environment is the ultimate form of evolution as opposed to millenia's worth of advancement.
>>323777
Our collective propensity for barbarity has not stopped or even held back our ability to continue to make technological progress.
Unless you think some sort of civilization ending doomsday event is just around the corner or something.
That may retard progress a bit. But it would not stop it.
>>320107
For fuck's sake, that would be like graphing how high a human has even gone relative to the surface of the planet like in >>319257. For millions of years we were stuck to the ground. Then someone invented the airplane/hot air balloon/whatever, which made the graph take off at that point. No more than 60 years later we sent the first human into space. Then the moon. If we were back then, we would look at the progress and say "Woah, the field is huge now! There is so much money being invested and so many smart people working on it that in less than 100 years we will be able to travel to other galaxies!". But it doesn't work that way. The first steps in research are much easier, we will end up hitting a problem that could take a lot of time to solve (cheap orbital launches), or be impossible altogether (Faster Than Light). That is were AI is now. We improved a lot on techniques that are the best we have now, but they are still too rudimentary compared to strong AI. It is like looking at the Apollo program and saying that if we keep it up we will be traveling to Andromeda Galaxy in no time.
>>320608
I would watch a movie with a plot like that.
Would be interesting to see how it played out.
>>324517
>That is were AI is now.
Except that's fucking wrong, AI is advancing quickly and huge piles of cash are pouring into the field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evNCyRL3DOU&t=1h46m
Yes. Neither transistors nor carbon molecules should have any rights.
why would they need rights? they suffer none of the woes of a living being, their conduct may still be strictly bound to a program, and being information, their existance as individuals is impossible.
there's nothing to regulate or protect, they are non-entities.
>>312187
Fuck no. If an advanced AI has the same rights as a human, what's to stop it from making a billion alpha forks and voting against our interests in elections, collecting benefits, and seducing OUR women folk?
>>325422
This shit only sounds impressive until you realize that they been making the same predictions over and over again and hoping something sticks.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/03/20/ray-kurzweils-predictions-for-2009-were-mostly-inaccurate/
fuck off lesswrong cultists your dumbass "robot god" will never fucking happen.
Shouldn't you be donating more to the neckbeard "AI researcher" that has never actually worked on anything much less published papers?
>>329297
The guy in the video is an actual leading AI researcher whose firm has been publishing results in Nature. Feel free to dismiss him as just some kurzweil fanboy tho
>>312187
You guys should ALL read this book that came out last year. It talks exactly on the subject
Rosi Braidotti, The Posthuman
