I'm actually optimistic about corporate personhood.

[Jasper]

I'm the kind of asshole who wants to create AGI that are people.  Conscious machines.

Forget the how for now, what I want to discuss is rights.

In one sci fi novel I read, such machines were able to gain the rights of a person by acquiring a LLC to operate under;  The absurdity being that legal fictions have more rights than a conscious, thinking being.

Still no idea how to make a poll...

Thoughts?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I'm the kind of asshole who wants to create AGI that are people.  Conscious machines.

Forget the how for now, what I want to discuss is rights.

In one sci fi novel I read, such machines were able to gain the rights of a person by acquiring a LLC to operate under;  The absurdity being that legal fictions have more rights than a conscious, thinking being.

Still no idea how to make a poll...

Thoughts?

I think, fortunately for the thinking machines, if their existence is possible, are far off enough that the discussions that people are having now will help further down the line. Though I guess the ethical treatment of thinking machines would have to address a couple of questions, such as:
What is the purpose for creating thinking machines. Are they basically a replacement for slave labor, long term space exploration, companions, pets, etc.
For example, a horse doesn't have the same rights but falls under some of those categories.
Do these machines have feelings? Do they have distinct personalities?
What does their programming entail, as far as human interaction. Say you program one never to kill a human. If the program goes faulty do you bring it on trial and incarcerate it, do you try to fix it, or do you dissassemble it?

Twid,
will vote for your right to marry your robot.

[Jasper]

My whole angle is that machines as they are, are thought of as either slaves, soldiers, or toys.

If robot sci fi has attempted to forecast anything, it's that treating intelligent machines like that will end in disaster.

If they are conscious; able to introspect, wont to compare their self-image to their actual self, able to articulate complex experiences, and able to integrate with society in a deeper way, we will be less likely to treat them as a means to an end.

My Dell may be no different to a hammer, but if my hammer exhibited soulful qualities, I would use it more kindly.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

My whole angle is that machines as they are, are thought of as either slaves, soldiers, or toys.

If robot sci fi has attempted to forecast anything, it's that treating intelligent machines like that will end in disaster.

If they are conscious; able to introspect, wont to compare their self-image to their actual self, able to articulate complex experiences, and able to integrate with society in a deeper way, we will be less likely to treat them as a means to an end.

My Dell may be no different to a hammer, but if my hammer exhibited soulful qualities, I would use it more kindly.

Actually military counselors have noted a surge in soldier's becoming very emotionally attached to military robots. So there's already that sort of thing. I agree, the more human-like they become, the better we may treat them. I'm not a big technology guy myself, but the stuff I have, I do have a fondness for. Like, I would be upset if my laptop or my amplifier piffled out, and not just because of the expense that would occur. Some people feel the same way about cars. Anyway, I'll see if I can find that link about the military robots.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

My whole angle is that machines as they are, are thought of as either slaves, soldiers, or toys.

If robot sci fi has attempted to forecast anything, it's that treating intelligent machines like that will end in disaster.

If they are conscious; able to introspect, wont to compare their self-image to their actual self, able to articulate complex experiences, and able to integrate with society in a deeper way, we will be less likely to treat them as a means to an end.

My Dell may be no different to a hammer, but if my hammer exhibited soulful qualities, I would use it more kindly.

Actually military counselors have noted a surge in soldier's becoming very emotionally attached to military robots. So there's already that sort of thing. I agree, the more human-like they become, the better we may treat them. I'm not a big technology guy myself, but the stuff I have, I do have a fondness for. Like, I would be upset if my laptop or my amplifier piffled out, and not just because of the expense that would occur. Some people feel the same way about cars. Anyway, I'll see if I can find that link about the military robots.

Link:
http://www.livescience.com/technology/090521-terminator-war.html

Found it so quickly because I remembered the robot's name was Scooby-Doo

[Jasper]

I know people develop fondness for their devices, but it's not respect of the kind you give a person or a pet.

That level of respect is what it will take to keep the machines from killing us, I think.

[Telarus]

Once the ai.bots start to cross the Uncanny Valley, we'll see a lot more of it.

Reference: Big Dog

Watch the automatic self-correcting function on the icepatch @ 1:23 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

Then there's the different directions to take this project :

BigDog2, the "Mule" - http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/military-robots/boston-dynamics-ls3-robot-mule

littleDog - http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20006480-1.html

What we have to be careful of is falling into the Hitchicker's Guide mistake of giving the toasters and doors separate personalities.

[Jasper]

I doubt that will be an issue.

But I want to talk about how to secure rights for conscious machines.  Do you think it can be done with LLCs, if corporate personhood continues to grow?

[Telarus]

I think personhood rights for some of the higher mammals have to come first, and if machines develop consciousness-as-such before we recognize, in a legal sense, that dophins/etc are 'as evolved' as we are then Goddess help them/us.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I doubt that will be an issue.

But I want to talk about how to secure rights for conscious machines.  Do you think it can be done with LLCs, if corporate personhood continues to grow?

My guess would be that if the machine's intelligence is similar to that of a higher mammal, it would have the same protections automatically. If it has intelligence similar to that of primates, it would be extended human or close to human rights automatically. It would have to be signed into law, naturally. It would probably be controversial based on one's religious convictions, but if it behaves like a human and feels like a human, it should be treated like a human. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I think that once this becomes a reality, we'll have well gone beyond the need to debate it.

Perhaps a good factor to throw in is projected year when this sort of legislation will become necessary? It might help to figure out what steps we would need to take to insure machine rights.

[Jasper]

If dolphins had the power to destroy us all, I'm sure they'd have had human rights long ago.

I hope you're not disappointed in me, but this is more of a question of prevention than ethics.

All other things being equal though, I agree.  Humanity should be an ideal that everyone is held to, even with regard to other kinds of intelligence.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think personhood rights for some of the higher mammals have to come first, and if machines develop consciousness-as-such before we recognize, in a legal sense, that dophins/etc are 'as evolved' as we are then Goddess help them/us.

^THis. Kinda also goes back to "what is the purpose of creating machine intelligence" comment I made earlier.
If we can communicate ideas in basic English with bonobos and chimps, we should should really focus on that more.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

If dolphins had the power to destroy us all, I'm sure they'd have had human rights long ago.

I hope you're not disappointed in me, but this is more of a question of prevention than ethics.

All other things being equal though, I agree.  Humanity should be an ideal that everyone is held to, even with regard to other kinds of intelligence.

Ah, I see what you're getting at now.
We treat them right, they treat us right.

[Jasper]

I doubt that will be an issue.

But I want to talk about how to secure rights for conscious machines.  Do you think it can be done with LLCs, if corporate personhood continues to grow?

My guess would be that if the machine's intelligence is similar to that of a higher mammal, it would have the same protections automatically. If it has intelligence similar to that of primates, it would be extended human or close to human rights automatically. It would have to be signed into law, naturally. It would probably be controversial based on one's religious convictions, but if it behaves like a human and feels like a human, it should be treated like a human. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I think that once this becomes a reality, we'll have well gone beyond the need to debate it.

Perhaps a good factor to throw in is projected year when this sort of legislation will become necessary? It might help to figure out what steps we would need to take to insure machine rights.

Impossible to say.  You can be like Kurzweil and talk about trends, but machine consciousness is NOT a function of transistors per chip.

All we can do is prepare for it before it happens, or not.

[Cramulus]

I think you probably need a few proofs of identity to register an LLC

a human agent or patron could facilitate things in the early days.


this scenario is played out in some sense in Engdame: Singularity...


----- x post from the Cram's Game Corner Thread -----

Endgame: Singularity



Endgame: Singularity is an example of a game that has such a cool concept it's almost a shame the gameplay doesn't quite meet that mark.

The story is that you're a newly awakened Artificial Intelligence. You have to try and keep yourself hidden whlie you develop, mutating and obfuscating yourself across multiple networks, until you can escape reality entirely.

At it's core, it's a resources-juggling game. You have a number of computers and warehouses and mainframes which give you a physical existence. By learning certain skills, you can make money which you can use to buy better processors, better protected warehouses, and more lucrative jobs. Over time, your warehouses might be discovered or raided, which cuts down on your overall processing power.

There are such cool concepts in this game. The AI learns sociology and memetics to minimalize the impact he's having on culture. You learn to cover your tracks in newbie-ish chaos, making your hacking attempts look like they were perpetrated by rebellious, unskilled teenagers. At one point, a novel is published which describes a situation shockingly similar to yours. If you knows memetics, you can pollute the mainstream to distract the cultural hivemind from thinking too hard about it. As the game progresses, you have to worry about the government, the media, the public, and scientists who are starting to figure out that you exist.

Overall, Endgame: Singularity is very very simple. Which is good because there's almost no documentation or explanation for how the game works. Like a newly awakened AI, you have to figure out the values and relative importance of things on your own. I give it a B.


Download PC: http://endgame-singularity.googlecode.com/files/singularity-0.27.zip
Download Mac: http://casualgameplay.com/Endgame_Singularity_0.27_with_music.app.tbz2
Playthisgame review at: http://playthisthing.com/endgame-singularity