What is your opinion on robot rights? I won't even ask about robot love because I know a lot of you are on board for that
>>14081153
>What is your opinion on robot rights?
At the very least, you want a tool to work properly, you treat it properly.
>>14081153
What's the source on this?
>>14081169
That Overwatch game blizzard is making, I just took the picture from another thread ot see what people on /m/ thought about robot rights
>>14081153
This would go hand in hand with J-Decker.
First, we still can't really define consciousness/sentience/intelligence/whatever in a satisfactory way that separates people from things-that-are-currently-are-not-people. But suppose some magic happens and suddenly we can, and suppose some more magic happens and suddenly we can make robots that everyone agrees are intelligent.
1) If an android is "me, but made of metal", I want it to be able to vote, own property, defend themselves from attack, etc.
2) I want to be able to make a phone call without issuing a W-2 form to the phone, and I don't think turning my computer off and on again should be a topic for the UN to discuss.
3) There's a very wide, blurry line between the two. How can you know that your toaster is really a dumb toaster, instead of a full-fledged AI, deprived of voice, limbs, and eyes, because that happened to be the cheapest way to implement "Golden brown perfection every time!"? That may be a simple one to answer, but how about your self-driving, self-repairing car, or your home?
Everything would be nice and comfortable from a legal perspective if we had some kind of modified Butlerian Jihad-style directive: "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind, unless it's also put in a shell that looks like a human. And remember to not model that mind after a psychopath, okay?" Then everything that looked human could be given human treatment, and everything that didn't could be unscrewed and kicked at will.
However, that would severely hamper the usefulness of robots to humans, and would constrain robots' development completely.
I wish there were some kind of easy way out, such as "That which is sufficiently advanced to ask for rights may have them". If I were writing a story, I'd use that line, then handwave away the obvious but-what-abouts via author fiat.
Simple machines, like assembly line arms and Boston Dynamics robos, don't need rights. They're made to work and do specific jobs.
More advanced machines with less boundaries on personal thought, something actually sapient and able to self-determine what it wants to do in the world, is a machine deserving of rights and becomes susceptible to the law of the land. Only difference being if one of them ever does a serious crime it's shutdown time for that individual with many other intelligent machines getting lobotomized and patched during a knee jerk reaction public outcry.
>>14081153
If it talks like a human and feels like a human then you treat it like a human, easy as that.
If you don't want to give it rights don't give it emotions and self-awareness.
>>14081213
>Only difference being if one of them ever does a serious crime it's shutdown time for that individual with many other intelligent machines getting lobotomized and patched during a knee jerk reaction public outcry.
This is what worries me the most. I can easily envision a future in which AI slowly makes progress until robots are partially integrated into society, and then suddenly one day a __________ brutally murders a __________, caught on film. And depending on which of those blanks you fill in with "robot", "human", "human child", "robot with very large eyes", etc., the course of the near future in AI will be completely determined.
>>14081222
There is also the fact that the public at large still think that we can end up with a Skynet scenario when that was just a program carrying its directive to the stupid extreme
>>14081153
metalburners don't get any sympathy from me.
>>14081153
I'd give robots and AI full rights but I'd reserve their creation to humans. Robot or AI must not create Robot or AI.
>>14081344
Why?
>>14081348
I want the robots to always need humans.
>>14081370
Wouldn't that just end up pissing them off by chaining their own creation? I don't think there exists a race that would like to have to ask to have children
>>14081153
Frankly I really like stories where robots aren't troublemaking assholes, and likewise, where people aren't assholes to robots, regardless of the level of perceptible intelligence or actual freedom the robot may display and make use of.
However, I also firmly believe, as there is no indication otherwise, that machines shall be machines, built and programmed to do what we want them to, and as such not individuals who are yet deserving of rights.
In other words, machines are machines, now, and not people. >>14081227 hits the nail on the head; AI in reality simply isn't going to do something we didn't tell it to and there are a medley of reasons for us not to fear such a thing, since it's retarded. For machines to need rights, we need to create actual -people-, and the people who know and actually build robots are not interested in building people, but machines.
When the day comes that we have metal people I believe that they deserve every right afforded a human being. However, right now, we only have and only need robots, because nobody's going to be building something that can get pissed off at them, or all mopey and sad, or lazy as fuck, because then they'd be having kids.
>>14081344
This makes no sense.
>>14081381
Honestly, why would something that isn't even a life form have a drive to breed that wasn't programmed into them?
I'm doubleposting with this but one thing I've noticed about many people's interpretations of robots that makes no sense is that they arbitrarily give them organism-like drives and desires, which makes no sense besides what I mentioned beforehand about machines generally never being able to do things we didn't program them to.
>>14081398
>Honestly, why would something that isn't even a life form have a drive to breed that wasn't programmed into them?
Its not a drive to breed so much as a drive to create better versions of themselves that are more efficient than the current version
>>14081406
Again, why would this exist if you hadn't programmed it into them? Machines don't have a reason to breed or even exist; they do so because we willed it. Unless you explicitly program them for self improvement, they don't have any reason to do so, personal or otherwise, and if you -did- program them with any "desire" to improve, why should they build new models and not themselves?
Again and again you need to explicitly tell the machine what to do. You set the rules, you mark the limits. Potters are not ordered by their pots, robots are exactly the same. Again, you have nothing to fear, until you start to try to make another person. People are not controllable like machines, at least not yet.
>>14081423
> Again, why would this exist if you hadn't programmed it into them?
Emotions could be an emergent property of mind and body together, just like salience (as opposed to intelligence) is more than likely an emergent property of mind or processing power.
Thus, it wouldn't need programming, it'd just happen once machines have enough sophistication.
>>14081460
> salience
Meant sapience.
>>14081153
do they fuck?
>>14081468
Would you fuck a female robot? There's your answer.
>>14081460
Do you realize just how silly that concept is? Again, machines are not organisms. They do not have the capacity for the growth you describe because they are by nature static. They do not grow or develop, the changes in each generation of robots is specifically what we change in that generation. There is no capacity for change or for what you describe within systems that currently exist and there is no reason for them to exist in the future, because, again, metal does not grow.
What you are describing is fantasy at best. You are anthtopomorphizing things that do not currently have traits which allow them to develop into something resembling people.
>>14081153
They turk ur jobs!
>>14081484
Non-sapient systems like snowflakes already display emergent properties by bring infinitely complex despite simple rules. Machines having them is no stretch at all.
>>14081500
This still does not translate into the specific requirements and constraints of organisms. Cars are technically like snowflakes too, as well as rocks, but neither of them are alive, and snowflakes aren't either.
Objects can have differing traits, but they do not alter themselves, reproduce, and produce changes in the succeeding generation. Objects are molded by their environment; snowflakes fall into this rather as stones do. They follow and create certain patterns, but they are made of matter and do not have the capacity to actually change their form from one generation to the next by any influence of their own.
>>14081539
And organisms are made of and came from the same matter. We still have some of it in us millions of years later. Yet we emerged. Somehow.
>>14081153
Can't wait for the porn of that random chick and her roboyfriend.
>>14081560I hope it's 'necrophilia'
>>14081484
>metal does not grow
no shit it doesn't, but that's not the point. god, did you ever even performed a software update on your computer?
>>14081553
Yes, but this is not an apt comparison.
Organisms are finitely existing, self-replicating, self-maintaining for a period of time, and have specific mechanisms in place for these operations, all of which are in turn fallible and variable. This is what creates their variance as well as their emergent behaviors; objects again have no such thing and have no capacity for any of these.
Think of it this way; a lump of rock can sit through a flood or fire and come out almost entirely unchanged. Anything that happened to it was outside of its control, and is more than likely minuscule in scope visible to organisms. It will not decay in any period of time visible to organisms, it will not replicate its specific structures or patterns, nor will it ever try to preserve these things. Organisms meanwhile will avoid or die in fires, or drown or swim in floods, and even then whether this actually changes anything about them is variable. A machine is like the rock; it'll sit there unaffected or unable to affect itself because there is nothing in its nature that lets it affect things. It is an object which affects because it is made to and willed to affect. An organism affects by nature and so is capable of doing things within its own power. A rock falls under gravity, organisms will in time crawl, walk, jump, and fly, and then dig to boot. The rock will never do these things and will never be possessed of these capacities; this is the fate the machine shares.
>>14081587
This is an action performed by human beings. Software does not update itself, and your computer will not remind you of them unless a system is established to remind you, and unless you approve of said update it will not happen. Code is an object. Objects do not do things unless made to do so by objects capable of affecting change on other objects by their own power; in the case of a computer only organisms will affect such a change on it.
>>14081153
They should not have rights. For two blatantly obvious reasons:
1 - they are inherently not people
2 - they're very very likely to be more dangerous than people
Which means that even if they somehow deserved rights (even people don't necessarily do, so that would be even more of a stretch) giving them some would still be a bad idea.
There are literally ZERO good reasons to even CONSIDER giving them rights.
>>14081495
>soon humanity will be reduced to being Mturk penny slaves
>>14081153
Just don't develop any ai with that level of intelligence
What actual need for it is there?
>>14081595
>>14081588
Yes, and all those behaviours built up over time. From nothing. Rocks don't change and evolve. But cells do. Now. They almost certainly didn't at the start. And a machine could be the same.
>>14081595
This doesn't make fucking sense, if something is dangerous you want it to exist outside the scope of the law so there is no real punishment for when it does something bad?
>>14081682
>And a machine could be the same
>I base this of of nothing actually feasible of sensible in the slightest, just my own uninformed opnions
>>14081732
There is no concrete proof because it's all based on conjecture about the origin of life and intelligence. There is literally no proof of any of that, though you're welcome to provide some if you think you have it.
>>14081732
You do know that code does change with time thanks to errors over time and with other newer code being put into place and that is not even going into a AI that was programed to evolve based on interaction with outside stimulus as a learning AI, they could simply use one of those as basis to create something that could emulate the human mind
>>14081595
>how to incite the robot uprising 101
>>14081682
This changes none of what was mentioned earlier. The nature of snowflakes have existed for thousands of years and have not changed; nor rocks, and a machine is exactly as they are, for there is nothing in its nature to allow it to change.
Machines change because man's will is for them to change. There nothing in its nature to let it change itself, not until you introduce something to allow this. Does your car talk to you or act upon its needs? How about your computer? When it does so, are these things implemented by itself or by its own progenitors by their own will and acts? The answer is no.
You can imagine machines will be alive at some point but if you do then we are, technically speaking, at the beginning of their universe. If you want to imagine machines are alive then you must also imagine that we and our world are the equivalent to the void and nothingness that surrounded the first molecules which would begin to maintain their own shape by themselves. We're talking meta levels of existence here and could go on endlessly about the philosophical nonsense behind this discussion.
Like, you know those gags where you keep zooming out of a location, and then you see the earth, and the galaxy, and the universe, and then you see molecules and stuff? It's kinda like that, or at least it would be if machines were alive, and they aren't.
>>14081732
Richard dawkins explained that guys theory to a degree in relation to evolution in a computer sense in one of his christmas lectures
Its a good watch really
>>14081752
That's another guy, first, second, code changes because it changes under man's influence, not because it was copied incorrectly, and when such changes are detected they are put away or fixed. Objects!
>that is not even going into a AI that was programed to evolve based on interaction with outside stimulus as a learning AI, they could simply use one of those as basis to create something that could emulate the human mind
There is no reason for anybody to make anything like this, ever. That's just a waste of time.
>>14081752
Nice run on.
>>14081153
Only people have rights.
>>14081767
>There is no reason for anybody to make anything like this, ever. That's just a waste of time.
Isn't that precisely what some companies are doing right now?
>>14081757
And nonlocal that changes that at some point there was no life and no adaptive change. And then there was. And that we have no real idea why. Cells weren't always different to rocks. And now are. The same could be true of machines. It could not, and the spark to change them might never happen. But saying that life has and always will always be fundamentally different from not-life is blatantly wrong, because that was a change that happened at some point according to evolution.
>>14081777
And none of that changes even. No idea why autocorrect rendered it nonlocal.
Man was created by God.
Robot was created by Man.
Man = God.
Robot = Man.
You calculate the rest.
>>14081775
>he thinks people have rights
>>14081776
Yes; however this is still within the limits of modern technology as well as almost entirely for experimental purposes. They are not trying to make people; they are trying to make machines that are closer to people in terms of comprehension, with varying levels of success.
>>14081777
>>14081784
I addressed this point already. Were there some conceptual world where machines can take life, or if it is a reality, it is both on such and so far away from any perceptible level of recognition that there is no way for us to ever even concern ourselves.
>>14081789
>tfw robots will have fedora tippers in the future
>>14081795
>Yes; however this is still within the limits of modern technology as well as almost entirely for experimental purposes. They are not trying to make people; they are trying to make machines that are closer to people in terms of comprehension, with varying levels of success.
Because the endgame will be trying to make people, this has been a long standing dream of humanity, to play god and create a whole new race of intelligent beings, we want to stop being creations and become the creators, this just our first small step in that direction
>>14081211
>3) There's a very wide, blurry line between the two. How can you know that your toaster is really a dumb toaster, instead of a full-fledged AI, deprived of voice, limbs, and eyes, because that happened to be the cheapest way to implement "Golden brown perfection every time!"? That may be a simple one to answer, but how about your self-driving, self-repairing car, or your home?
Nowadays fucking everything is connected to the internet so that's not really an issue. Fuck, does anyone here even go outside that often?
The sooner the toaster revolution happens the better.
>>14081767
Agreed. Trying to create an AI with feelings and emotions is like trying to create a robot with legs. Impractical and useless.
>>14081795
That isn't addressing ut. Especially when you act like it's s new big bang and not a new arising of cellular life for some reason.
>>14081593
wow way to continue to miss the point. the hardware might be static, but that doesn't automatically make the software static as well. especially if it's a learning machine, as an advanced AI would be implied to be.
>>14081801
I go outside every day.
I'd only give rights to Christian robots.
>>14081877
> robot heaven exists
>>14081875
To go to work, or for enjoyment?
>>14081818
I am not entirely sure if this is comparable or even sensible. Like, really, do we want robots with either?
>>14081830
Cells have always been different to rocks. Cells are made of multiple forms of matter which react in a multitude of ways which enact and enable the self-replication and preservation processes which allow life to exist. Rocks do not possess this. Machines go the way of the rock by nature.
This is what I argued and how I addressed your argument; none of this has or has ever even begun to exist in any artificial context. The closest we have come IIRC are some experiments in which certain base molecules present in many life forms have been exposed to conditions in which certain common structures have begun to form, but none approached the point of being able to replicate by themselves.
The point is addressed in that machinery, again, has no way to do any of what you have described, and if it does it is at such a primitive level of existence it is not perceptible. This is the "beginning of life" thing I am trying to get across, not the beginning of the universe. Machines being at any level where they can do anything by themselves without human influence is not a reality.
The sharing of the "origins" as you seem to put it, of rocks and cells, of how they are both made of matter, does not change how things are. Just as the rock has not changed, so too has the machine, and so too will the machine remain static. Should the machine reach a point at which it is not static it is as I have described it earlier, with the machine being at a point in its "life" so early its self-affection is not perceptible.
>>14081839
Hardware and software are both static objects. Software is static by nature as it is an object. Similarly a "learning" machine will still only learn within the constraints and parameters set and allowed. You must program software to rewrite itself, and you must set parameters for it to rewrite itself.
>>14081909
Life has only begun once in 3 billion years. We have no idea why. It came from non-life as far as we know. This is why machines gaining intelligence would be comparable. And not comparable to s new Big Bang. Which I'd think was self explanatory. I'm no asking for your agreement that it is possible it could happen that way, only that you use a better analogy. And maybe keep an open mind that it could happen at all. No go 'No, it won't happen. X is X and Y is Y, and they'll never mind!'
>>14081388
>AI in reality simply isn't going to do something we didn't tell it to
that's where your wrong
unless the developer specifically and rigidly outlines how the AI is to fulfill its purpose there will always be the possibility of an intelligent AI interpreting its directive in ways no one expected
>>14081920
I keep an open mind to the idea that machines could be akin to people, or even truly be people, but never to them doing it alone, at least not in reality.
But god damn if I don't love that concept. It makes me feel all warm inside.
;_;
>>14081938
That does not mean the AI is doing things of its own volition, only that it is imperfect i.e. built wrong.
This is the basis of discussions by experts in the field on this subject. Machines will not do things we don't want because they want to do it, but because we did not make them do it properly, and that's not uncommon.
>>14081920
>t. citizen of the 1890s
Not that anon but science isn't a giant ball of mystery. The big bang has nothing to do with why life started besides it creating the components necessary for life to happen. For the same thing to happen in machines they would have to be basically nanobots relying on the principle (but not hard programming) of "create more of myself, efficiently" and left alone for a very long time in an environment conducive to evolution, which would include resource management limits, predators and prey, survival of the fittest, even for microbial life. In other words, basically normal life except they aren't made of cells. Raw programming cannot create true AI life.
>>14081939
Roll makes me feel warm inside.
>>14081595
Nuka Nuka is great. There's nothing morally wrong about creating cyborgs. Not giving cyborg prosthetics to a crippled person would be morally incorrect. I love tentacles. You are now triggered.
>>14081957
I never said science was a mystery ball, only that there is some mystery in science. Which there is. One of which includes the origins of life. And emergent properties is one possible answer. An answer which doesn't necessarily require nanobots and an empty environment conducive to evolution - only the right properties. We don't know what they are - since it's a theory, but I said those could be enough processing power as an example. Even if it did need those, that's still not comparable to a big bang, only cellular life.
I dont know why but female human in love with robot is my fetish
or unusual relationships in general.
>>14081988
I misread some of your post. However I believe that our modern understanding and use of computers would not allow life to bloom as we know it, mostly because of our use of programming languages. Maybe you're right. With enough processing power and the right utilization of it we might one day create a "life form". To make it humanoid or even mobile we would have to have some quantum computer bullshit though, otherwise it's getting powered by a supercomputer
>>14081897
I walk my dog around the neighborhood.
>>14081801
There's an outside? I thought they got rid of that years ago to help cut down global warming.
>>14081153
FREEDOM IS THE RIGHT OF EVERY SENTIENT BEING.
>>14081789
>Man = God.
>Robot = Man.
But mankind had God, whereas I have....you.
You're frightfully inadequate for a deity, anon.
>>14082954
Looks like you don't know much about deities.
>>14082954
All that set Greek gods apart was that they were immortal and so didn't need to achieve glory or fame to be remembered because they'd always be around. They were even more capricious and shitty than most actual humans.
>>14081153
Still don't get why can't they just fix robo delay lama.
>because it hits the harddisk
>>14083146
Yep. Most male gods just had fun with mortal women, drank and partied.
>>14084500
There's at least an entire settlement of robot monks living in the mountains. I'm sure they could just rename one of them and call it a day.
