Alright /tg/, through some fluke, your voice will become the direction for an incredibly powerful lobbying power in the near future. But you can only weigh in on one question.
When does an AI get human rights?
Right now.
>>44049719
When it figures out how to check the "I'm not a robot" box
As soon as we realize if AIs will try to kill us
>>44049719
Never, cant have rights when youre not human.
>>44049719
I'll defer judgement to these guys
https://intelligence.org/
when they can solve captcha
>>44049719
Never, they'll get AI rights. Can't have human rights if you're not human. Kind of a no-brainer.
>>44049719
What are currently considered
'human rights' are renamed 'sapient rights' and all things that are proven to be sapient benefit from those rights.
If the AI is truly sapient, it's got rights. Same for clones, aliens, uplifted animals, and anything else capable of actually thinking.
Kind of a shitty decision to get a say in, desu. I mean, it's probably still far away, and the answer is going to be the same one we'd get without my input: Whenever we can reasonably assume that they're self-aware.
Pretty boring. Do I at least get an android girlfriend with a spiffy robot vagina out of this?
>>44049719
>>44049719
I see three prerequisites:
>Are they self aware?
>Are they aware of the thoughts and perceptions of others?
>Do they feel compassion?
>>44050629
Give definitions for all three that can be determined for the purposes of law.
>>44049719
When they gain lust.
>>44050139
>a spiffy robot vagina out of this?
It has a vibrate feature.
>>44050139
>android girlfriend
Calling gynoids androids was determined to be offensive 3 months ago, shitlord.
>>44049719
When it asks for them.
>>44049719
When they can choose to do good.
>>44050629
>>Do they feel compassion?
You just declared that 50% of the population isn't human m8
>>44050629
So infants don't get rights?
>>44053617
Children don't get rights in many, if not most countries. They get protections, yes, but it's basically the same protections that animals get, just turned up a notch or two. They don't get any rights at all until they reach the age of majority or legally emancipate themselves when they're fairly close to the age of majority. Every legal option they have has to be approved by their guardian(s) or the government, and can be approved entirely without their consent or input.
>>44049802
>>44049833
>>44053617
They certainly don't have all the rights an adult does, no. That's kind of a massive part of how law interacts with childcare.
>>44049719
If an AI can ask for a break or a paycheck without being explicitly programmed to, I'll count it human.
>>44049719
When they can do the most human thinglie to themselves.
>>44049805
Good link
When they can make a stand and take it for themselves.
They don't.
>you'll live long enough to se gays and blacks against robot and/or augmented rigths
>>44058920
>That bag.
>Giving AI """"""""""rights"""""""""" ever
>Being this retarded
>>44059703
>Not giving them the same treatment as humans so they don't grow to resent Humans.
>>44059748
>Not giving them the same treatment as humans so they don't grow to resent Humans.
Contrary to this, giving them equal treatment will give them the idea that they are equal to us, and, once technology advances, (obviously) superior to us.
Never giving them rights and programming servility into their code is a much safer bet.
>>44049719
As soon as it's verified as an AI.
>>44059768
Or how about never making true AI?
Remarkable
>>44059891
>I hate science because watching the terminator scared me.
>>44049719
here should be a system where different levels of intelligence is standardized. if the ai approaches the level of a human or above it should be considered human and get all the rights afforded to us. making this ai is tantamount to giving birth. it doesn't matter if you are made of flesh and bone or steel and plastic. human is human. see the "imitation game"
messing with a sentient AI is to be considered brain washing and off course illegal. whenever software is created that looks like it is approaching intelligence it shall be studied against the table mentioned above to see its human
Am I luddite for thinking we should outlaw self-aware, intelligent AI when it becomes possible to create them.
>>44061708
hmmmm I think personally it should be fluid and based on the context, if a AI that was made for the express purpose of just killing things then I dont think it would be a very..productive or friendly thing to allow true freedom, thats like giving a guy who lives to kill a free pass to run around. Though personally I dont think AI should be used for war. I think they should be made for logistics and management and allowing them " freedom" to chose their field of study or just general use of free time once they have "served" under their respective field long enough as a sentient, but while teaching them that the reason we do this is so that they understand how the society around them works, like introducing a immigrant to the new society via job placement then allowing them to chose their own work after x amount of time showing they can be integrated safely.
>>44053655
Rage all you want Donald you know it's true. Also transhumanist scifi books are rotting your brain.
>>44059891
>>44060403
Actually, there's good reason to be scared, under certain circumstances. Given that an artificial intelligence is of at least human-level intellect in all areas, it would also be at least as qualitively capable as any given human at computer programming, meaning that it could generate a new AI smarter than itself, or simply upgrade its own code, with a significant quantitive advantage over us due to how its "brain" is wired. Having acquired more intellect, this new AI could proceed to repeat the same thing at a higher level, and the same for its successor, and so on and so forth to ever-increasing degrees of both quality and quantity.
Effectively, an infinitely-smartening AI is likely to be the singularity by itself. "Be", mind, not "incite". The problem is that such an entity would ultimately have full control over every atom on Earth- never mind giving it "rights", since this artificial super intelligence could do as it pleases with no hope of interference. If it's not coded correctly, said entity could thus end up destroying or otherwise harming humanity, even if the function it would otherwise fulfil wouldn't be so harmful at subhuman levels of intelligence. Keep in mind that that's not because it'd be actively malicious toward us, unless directly coded to be as such; it just so happens that we're made of atoms that can be repurposed toward other things. What's this about "continuity of self" and "human morality"? Yeah, that last step will be a doozy if we can't figure it out within, say, thirty or so years. Fortunately, there are groups working on solving the problem of human morality so as to develop it into a full set of code for any prospective AI, for instance the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, which was linked to at >>44049805. Go donate to them; it might well be the single most important thing you ever do.
>>44062566
When is that shit ever not Luddite propaganda?
At what point does an artificial intelligence, because just an intelligence?
>>44063409
Birth.
>>44063409
Did you how to words?
>>44063409
>>44063504
Whoops, meant to type become, not because.
>>44062572
Maybe we should just not make AIs that can reproduce. By either limiting its space to grow and develop, to hardwire in a "revulsion" towards the act of reproduction, or just not giving it access to the required materials to reproduce.
Honestly the very moment we allow AIs to reproduce and/or improve itself we might as well pack in our shit.
>>44062566
>>44063338
Hear, hear
