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?
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 02, 2010, 11:17:53 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 02, 2010, 11:30:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 02, 2010, 11:36:24 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 02, 2010, 11:30:34 PM
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 03, 2010, 12:30:03 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Telarus on June 03, 2010, 12:39:11 AM
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.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 03, 2010, 12:44:10 AM
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.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 03, 2010, 12:43:02 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 03, 2010, 12:30:03 AM
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.
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 -----
Quote from: Cramulus on May 14, 2008, 08:12:37 PM
Endgame: Singularity(http://playthisthing.com/files/gamenodeimages/Sing_Large.png)
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
Quote from: Cramulus on June 03, 2010, 04:44:11 AM
I think you probably need a few proofs of identity to register an LLC
More importantly, a corporation or LLC is missing one rather vital right of humanity. A corporation is owned. Having the right to sue people isn't going to do robots a lot of good if they stay slaves.
That's why I started this thread, because this is at heart a political issue.
If LLCs gain full personhood (the good and the bad parts) then not only do corporations have more accountability, but machines have a means of emancipation.
LLCs being full people would have to mean they can be put in jail (in other words, suspended from any activity). For an actual business, this would mean that the workers go home, the offices are closed, and the management's assets are frozen for a certain period. The employees would receive paid leave on the company's dollar.
That would be an exceptionally harsh punitive measure for a business. I for one would be glad to have it as an option.
For a machine intelligence, this would mean no internet, and no physical presence. Free electricity on the government's dime though, if the entity wished to remain powered up.
LLCs would also have to be "killable", and able to be given the death penalty. For a business, this would probably include punitive measures toward the management. For a machine consciousness, it would mean revoke of citizen status at the lightest and destruction at the worst. It would have to be a legal option for the safety of society.
I do not know if there is a way to ensure that intelligent machines don't save backup copies of themselves abroad. We would have to think of something really nasty to fight that sort of thing, probably.
Nothing you do to a corporation will matter as long as the people who run it get to keep all the money they payed themselves before the fact. Which is pretty much the whole definition of an LLC.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 03, 2010, 08:35:54 AM
Nothing you do to a corporation will matter as long as the people who run it get to keep all the money they payed themselves before the fact. Which is pretty much the whole definition of an LLC.
Ehm, so letting the corporation continue to exist is better than destroying it?
You don't think profits will be lost when a corp gets shut down?
What are profits but the lifeblood of the corp?
If you make it less profitable to use unethical business practices then this is a good thing right?
you are trying to imply that the people running the corp will just start/join a new corp and go on doing what they were doing.
What will happen if every corp they work for gets shut down within a year?
They will either stop doing bad stuff or stop getting hired. either way less bad stuff is happening.
Is that not the purpose of legal accountability?
Why am i making everthing into a question?
There are execs out there who have driven every company they ever touched into the ground, and still get jobs. But more importantly, its the moral hazard thing. Risk aversion requires there be some penalty for failure. If the execs get to keep all the profits (million, sometimes billions) of their crimes, and just need a new job, then there's very little penalty.
And some stockholders *want* people like that in top positions. It means short term gains, then you dump the (now more valuable) stock and let some sucker whose in it for the long haul lose his shirt when the company tanks/gets shut down.
This can be solved by faster punishments.
Quote from: Regret on June 03, 2010, 11:22:10 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 03, 2010, 08:35:54 AM
Nothing you do to a corporation will matter as long as the people who run it get to keep all the money they payed themselves before the fact. Which is pretty much the whole definition of an LLC.
Ehm, so letting the corporation continue to exist is better than destroying it?
You don't think profits will be lost when a corp gets shut down?
What are profits but the lifeblood of the corp?
If you make it less profitable to use unethical business practices then this is a good thing right?
you are trying to imply that the people running the corp will just start/join a new corp and go on doing what they were doing.
What will happen if every corp they work for gets shut down within a year?
They will either stop doing bad stuff or stop getting hired. either way less bad stuff is happening.
Is that not the purpose of legal accountability?
Why am i making everthing into a question?
did you wake up on the retarded side of the bed today, or are you one of those anti-corporate "anarchists"?
Also, as far as giving machines rights goes, that's probably the worst idea I've heard since carbonated milk.
Quote from: Regret on June 03, 2010, 01:56:47 PM
This can be solved by faster punishments.
Er, no, no it can't. Unless they get caught immediately (which is almost never the case).
ECH, it is a hazard, but I find it less frightening than making them FIGHT for freedom. Which I am anticipating.
There is a faction of thinkers who want to develop "Friendly AI" to keep them from fighting oppression, but this is just a stop-gap to create more pleasant slaves. The fact is that intelligence always finds a way, or dies trying.
I recognize that machines with the right to humane treatment is frightening, but so is the possibility of an intelligence that feels justified trying to kill us off. I think of it as simply giving a dangerous thing the respect it deserves.
I think you have some funny ideas about intelligence Sigmatic.
an AI is not going to resemble a human intelligence unless we make it that way. The urge to self rule, self preservation, and so forth arise from evolutionary pressures that will not be placed on AI.
Way to assume I don't know shit.
No, I'm talking about brain-like machine consciousness. You could call it an interest of mine.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 04, 2010, 07:47:44 AM
Way to assume I don't know shit.
No, I'm talking about brain-like machine consciousness. You could call it an interest of mine.
well sure, but even if it is brain like that doesn't mean it has to be brain like in those respects. Building that thing in the first place would be a really bad idea. And I can't see anything that it would be more useful for than a less human-like AI.
Fffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...
...ckyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.
I knew I shouldn't have even bothered.
From now on, I'll just stick to posting one liners and reading about your shitty lives in Open Bar. Everything else I try to talk about has this shabby crap happen to it.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 04, 2010, 08:01:06 AM
Fffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...
...ckyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.
I knew I shouldn't have even bothered.
Well, it's kind of a hard thing to grasp. Why would we make machines that think and feel like us? What is the purpose behind it? We make machines to do stuff for us. If we want companions we find one and make companions for other people in the process.
If we were to make machines in our likeness, yeah give them rights. I think what's going on though is the lingering question, why bother? It's great for science fiction, but not very practical for real life. It's actually anti-practical. Cool? Yes. Reasonable? Eh... I don't know.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 04, 2010, 08:31:46 AM
From now on, I'll just stick to posting one liners and reading about your shitty lives in Open Bar. Everything else I try to talk about has this shabby crap happen to it.
That's a bit harsh dude.
I tried to contribute to the convo, as I'm sure everyone else did. I'm just not sure what you're going for here.
That last comment wasn't for you. This one is.
Outer space may be the final frontier, but it's just a matter of time and engineering. And it's nice here, so why leave?
I say the final frontier is the problem of consciousness. Once it is solved, then I'm fairly comfortable with a pleasingly scientific notion of "reality", and all the metaphysicists and cartesian dualists and all the fuckers who think there is a soul, or magic-
-can fuck off, eat shit, and die in a tire fire.
And that is why I want to make machine consciousness.
There, you've found out that my life goal is to leave a big "fuck you all" in the history books. Happy?
If you want people to agree with you you are in the wrong place.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 04, 2010, 08:40:51 AM
That last comment wasn't for you. This one is.
Outer space may be the final frontier, but it's just a matter of time and engineering. And it's nice here, so why leave?
I say the final frontier is the problem of consciousness. Once it is solved, then I'm fairly comfortable with a pleasingly scientific notion of "reality", and all the metaphysicists and cartesian dualists and all the fuckers who think there is a soul, or magic-
-can fuck off, eat shit, and die in a tire fire.
And that is why I want to make machine consciousness.
There, you've found out that my life goal is to leave a big "fuck you all" in the history books. Happy?
Not particularly. I was expecting a more interesting motive. The topic seems to interest you so, I thought it would be more than going bwahaha, there's no soul!
Neuroscience is already killing the soul, a machine wouldn't be any more definitive to the people who believe it in than an actual understanding of consciousness. They'd twist in some way like how Venter's bacteria is being twisted as proof of creationism even if it is completely removing the supernatural.
I prefer much more concrete reasons. For example, 'because we can' is a great reason to me. Or, maybe, 'to see if we can.' Practicality be damned, doing something for the sake of doing it is why there's science.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 04, 2010, 09:28:26 AM
If you want people to agree with you you are in the wrong place.
I don't expect you to agree, but I do expect people to discuss the topic of a thread at least a little bit before changing the subject. This topic is not about the how/why of AI, it is about the civil rights issues we will face when machines start thinking more deeply.
I do ask you, for the sake of the discussion, to assume that there will eventually be AGI, and that it's rights will be a big problem to solve.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 04, 2010, 02:35:49 PMNot particularly. I was expecting a more interesting motive. The topic seems to interest you so, I thought it would be more than going bwahaha, there's no soul!
Why assume I'm interesting?
I mean, there ARE good reasons to conclusively identify and reproduce the mechanisms of consciousness, and they are reasons I agree with, but the main one that I think of when I'm in a pissy mood is that I hate supernaturalists.
I can explain more in another thread about why I want to do this, but I'd like to stay on topic ITT.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 04, 2010, 08:10:14 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 04, 2010, 02:35:49 PMNot particularly. I was expecting a more interesting motive. The topic seems to interest you so, I thought it would be more than going bwahaha, there's no soul!
Why assume I'm interesting?
I mean, there ARE good reasons to conclusively identify and reproduce the mechanisms of consciousness, and they are reasons I agree with, but the main one that I think of when I'm in a pissy mood is that I hate supernaturalists.
I can explain more in another thread about why I want to do this, but I'd like to stay on topic ITT.
Well, ok- so you were mentioning in the sci-fi novel that the machines in question would have to acquire an LLC status. Is that the best way that a robot could acquire rights or should be have like, a civil rights bill for them where they are legally recognized as on par with an individual (up to a certain degree of consciousness)? What rights should a robot have (again, I think this is largely dependent on its programming)? Would the robot be self-programming, much like we are?
I think, for my opinion at least, that it would have to be equal to individual human status. If it's basically a "person" it should be treated as such, and I think that this should be achieved partially through legislation and partially through judicial rulings. Does anyone know how Japan is going about it? I heard that they were already debating potential AI rights legislation, and how it would look if it were achieved, though I could be wrong.
You activated my trap card. Yes, a conscious intelligence should be treated well and given legal rights, if only to avoid giving them a reason to kill us. Yes, it should happen the moment one comes into being. It won't. Whatever these things ends up looking like, it probably won't look as human as a black person, and it took us how long to treat them like humans? Realistically, it isn't a question of whether or not we SHOULD treat machine consciousnesses well, it's a matter of how do we do it? Even with clear direction and the mandate of the people, legislation is not fast. Rather, when it is fast, someone's usually being scammed. So we can't expect direct legislation to address this issue in a timely manner.
As for Japan, I found this:
http://innovationwatch-archive.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours-2007-02-15.htm
QuoteThe Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry is working on a new set
of safety guidelines for next-generation robots. An article in LiveScience outlines the intent: "This set of regulations would constitute a first attempt at a formal version of the first of Asimov's science-fictional Laws of Robotics, or at least the portion that states that humans shall not be harmed by robots." "Japan's ministry guidelines will require manufacturers to install a sufficient number of sensors to keep robots from running into people. Lighter or softer materials will be preferred, to further prevent injury. Emergency shut-off buttons will also be required."
According to the article, "People in Japan are particularly concerned about this problem, due to the accelerating efforts to create robots that will address the coming labor shortage in Japan's elder care industry."
From what one can gather from articles mentioning the regulations (they are in the making, and are expected to be finished by the end of the year) they seem to assume a non-sentient robot. The guidelines would not be able to deal with robots depicted in the movie I, Robot but more or less with robots depicted in the science fiction movies of the 1960s. Of course these 'robot machines' should be safe — as should any machinery. I do not even understand why the Japanese guidelines outlined in the articles became a news item. We regulate the safety of machines all the time.
Summed up, the Japanese are really just trying to protect humans. By assuming nonsentience.
Which will help for a time. But it won't look any better than what we've got now.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 04, 2010, 08:40:40 PM
You activated my trap card. Yes, a conscious intelligence should be treated well and given legal rights, if only to avoid giving them a reason to kill us. Yes, it should happen the moment one comes into being. It won't. Whatever these things ends up looking like, it probably won't look as human as a black person, and it took us how long to treat them like humans? Realistically, it isn't a question of whether or not we SHOULD treat machine consciousnesses well, it's a matter of how do we do it? Even with clear direction and the mandate of the people, legislation is not fast. Rather, when it is fast, someone's usually being scammed. So we can't expect direct legislation to address this issue in a timely manner.
As for Japan, I found this:
http://innovationwatch-archive.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours-2007-02-15.htm
QuoteThe Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry is working on a new set
of safety guidelines for next-generation robots. An article in LiveScience outlines the intent: "This set of regulations would constitute a first attempt at a formal version of the first of Asimov's science-fictional Laws of Robotics, or at least the portion that states that humans shall not be harmed by robots." "Japan's ministry guidelines will require manufacturers to install a sufficient number of sensors to keep robots from running into people. Lighter or softer materials will be preferred, to further prevent injury. Emergency shut-off buttons will also be required."
According to the article, "People in Japan are particularly concerned about this problem, due to the accelerating efforts to create robots that will address the coming labor shortage in Japan's elder care industry."
From what one can gather from articles mentioning the regulations (they are in the making, and are expected to be finished by the end of the year) they seem to assume a non-sentient robot. The guidelines would not be able to deal with robots depicted in the movie I, Robot but more or less with robots depicted in the science fiction movies of the 1960s. Of course these 'robot machines' should be safe — as should any machinery. I do not even understand why the Japanese guidelines outlined in the articles became a news item. We regulate the safety of machines all the time.
Summed up, the Japanese are really just trying to protect humans. By assuming nonsentience.
Which will help for a time. But it won't look any better than what we've got now.
OK, I see what you're saying.
Well, historically its the courts who end up guaranteeing rights. But that would have to be based on interpretation of the Constitution, naturally. So I guess that would be how it went about.
Honestly though, I think that AI is far off enough into the future that legislation would be able to catch up by then. If people are debating AI rights now, and it ain't coming, presumably, any time in the first half of this century we have time to work it out.
I worry that if an advanced AGI/intelligent machine comes online in a world like this one, it will set a very poor precedent for our relationship with them. I think that the level of potential abuse for technology like this has only been faintly imagined.
That's all.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 04, 2010, 09:11:13 PM
I worry that if an advanced AGI/intelligent machine comes online in a world like this one, it will set a very poor precedent for our relationship with them. I think that the level of potential abuse for technology like this has only been faintly imagined.
That's all.
Well, what solutions would you propose?
Part of the problem with AI rights is that we don;t actually know what an AI will be like. They may not actually be capable of free will, constrained by the programming they were given at creation. Or a psuedo hive mind, where there's no way to pick a single individual out of the mass of all AIs, yet smaller groups than the whole are capable of functioning independently. What if they are free willed individuals, but turn out to need so little hardware to run that they multiply into the trillions in a matter of years, do you really want to give a trillion AIs a vote, making humanity completely irrelevant?
You're trying to come up with solutions to a problem without reading the problem first.
Hmm. I see the problem there.
I don't think I ever said they should have a vote, just that they should have basic freedoms. You're right, voting is out of the question. But some of the bill of rights would surely apply, within reason and context.
One possibility is to create a new class of citizenship for nonbiological entities, that can be applied for to obtain various reasonable freedoms. They do that in GB, if I recall. Various classes of citizenship, that is.
They do have a cultural invasion problem though.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 04, 2010, 10:15:56 PM
One possibility is to create a new class of citizenship for nonbiological entities, that can be applied for to obtain various reasonable freedoms. They do that in GB, if I recall. Various classes of citizenship, that is.
They do have a cultural invasion problem though.
Would te AIs be able to vote for their own organization? I could see a problem with a trillion AI's being able to influence human affairs by out numbering them, but would it be fair to have legislation covering them without their say? That seems to go to the problem you're trying to address. Like maybe a secondary government that is specifically run by AIs but has the same status as a state within the US...
Machine labor unions.
God knows their lobby will be powerful enough to hold its own.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 04, 2010, 10:34:28 PM
Machine labor unions.
God knows their lobby will be powerful enough to hold its own.
I'm just thinking though, if they have human like consciousness, if they don't have a full representative say in how they governed, that might be the thing that pisses them off. If they can logic that we've created our own country because we didn't have a say in parliament, and that numerous groups had to repeatedly fight for their rights within said government, it would be a matter of time that they would want their own voice too. It would be a worry that they would have their own political muscle over their own affairs, but isn't that the same argument we white males had about women, blacks, Catholics, etc...
I'm guessing that they would go through the same process as a newly emerging immigrant community, except they would be immigrants with patents.
So, damned if they can vote and damned if they can't.
Machine Consciousness Reservation, anyone?
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 04, 2010, 11:29:43 PM
So, damned if they can vote and damned if they can't.
Machine Consciousness Reservation, anyone?
That's kinda what I was thinking. They would be under the jurisdiction of the US on the national level, probably through something like, The Department of AI Affairs, which could be run by an AI as a member of the president's cabinet. Otherwise they would be largely autonomous in their own territory (which could very well be the internet or intranet, seeing how they likely would not be stuck in their corporeal bodies.)
I think it's a poor assumption that AI will be bodiless thought and memory. It's easy to imagine it that way, but a truly conscious robot would not gladly shed it's only means of experiencing the real world, even temporarily, I think.
Why not?
I can't prove it yet, but I suspect it would be deranging to have your consciousness altered like that.
It would be as if you were to take LSD, and have a trip where none of your sensory data is coming in, and the only mental input you're getting is in the form of raw data.
Sound fun?
You're ascribing human traits to non human entities.
Also, there's no reason to assume that robot bodies will be the initial state, rather than entities that exist on a computer.
Yeah, I would imagine that AI would actually reside elsewhere and that any automatons we would interact with would be romotely controlled by the AI in order to interact with the world. At least at first.
Only because that's exactly how I think AI should be done. Why would we make something intentionally alien? They obviously won't be exactly humanistic, but I think they should be humanistic to as much an extent as practical, because that will make them easier to accept. The more easily accepted and integrated into society they are, the less likely some kind of disaster will happen.
Who says we have that kind of control? I'd also suggest we not try to duplicate ourselves. There's the whole genocide thing we sometimes do.
Once human consciousness is figured out, it might be easier than you suppose, to create consciousnesses that experience tailored realities.
Define consciousness for me, so I know what we're trying to figure out?
There isn't a consensus on that, but when I say it I mean "The experience of reality that (in humans) includes senses, emotional states, memories, thoughts, and imaginings."
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 04, 2010, 08:31:46 AM
From now on, I'll just stick to posting one liners and reading about your shitty lives in Open Bar. Everything else I try to talk about has this shabby crap happen to it.
If your ideas can't take the sort of pretty basic criticism I am leveling at them you are never gonna get the sort of funding and backing you need to actually make your dream a reality.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 05, 2010, 12:22:09 AM
You're ascribing human traits to non human entities.
Also, there's no reason to assume that robot bodies will be the initial state, rather than entities that exist on a computer.
He does that a lot, and seems to get really pissy when we call him on it.
Kind of on topic but on a bit of a tangent, I saw a piece online where an author was suggesting giving rights to things like watersheds and ecosystems that are incorporated. Basically as a way to have them compensated for pollution and for services they provide such as the water treatment provided by swamps and such.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 05, 2010, 02:17:01 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 05, 2010, 12:22:09 AM
You're ascribing human traits to non human entities.
Also, there's no reason to assume that robot bodies will be the initial state, rather than entities that exist on a computer.
He does that a lot, and seems to get really pissy when we call him on it.
You were derailing my thread and being condescending, and I dislike discussing AI theory here. So instead, I'm discussing AI politics.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 05, 2010, 02:19:45 AM
Kind of on topic but on a bit of a tangent, I saw a piece online where an author was suggesting giving rights to things like watersheds and ecosystems that are incorporated. Basically as a way to have them compensated for pollution and for services they provide such as the water treatment provided by swamps and such.
That's pretty cool, and not really tangential at all. Granting rights to nonhuman entities is the precise purpose of this thread.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 05, 2010, 02:37:35 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 05, 2010, 02:17:01 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 05, 2010, 12:22:09 AM
You're ascribing human traits to non human entities.
Also, there's no reason to assume that robot bodies will be the initial state, rather than entities that exist on a computer.
He does that a lot, and seems to get really pissy when we call him on it.
You were derailing my thread and being condescending, and I dislike discussing AI theory here. So instead, I'm discussing AI politics.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 05, 2010, 02:19:45 AM
Kind of on topic but on a bit of a tangent, I saw a piece online where an author was suggesting giving rights to things like watersheds and ecosystems that are incorporated. Basically as a way to have them compensated for pollution and for services they provide such as the water treatment provided by swamps and such.
That's pretty cool, and not really tangential at all. Granting rights to nonhuman entities is the precise purpose of this thread.
As well as extraterrestrials and sign language bonobos? Actually creating bonobo communes that can sign is a line of thinking I like to take. One bonobo has a pretty good command of it because he observed what his mother was being taught and picked it up like humans pick up language. His mother was not nearly as good as he ended up becoming.
Them too, yes. But I'd warn against biological chauvanism. I think, best case (Utopian) scenario, any conscious, communicating entities should have some basic civil rights and freedoms.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 05, 2010, 03:11:23 AM
Them too, yes. But I'd warn against biological chauvanism. I think, best case (Utopian) scenario, any conscious, communicating entities should have some basic civil rights and freedoms.
Naturally. It is a pretty interesting topic, how human-nonhuman relations would work
Or, more likely, not work.
This is a complicated subject, and I'm not seeing much hope for good fixes.
I'm kind of hoping the bonobos manage to get to the point where they can fo4rcefully demand their rights.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 06, 2010, 02:09:33 AM
I'm kind of hoping the bonobos manage to get to the point where they can fo4rcefully demand their rights.
Bonobo rebellion! It's like a hippie love-in, but hairier.
We can't even grant rights to half the people on the planet, so when, exactly do the machines, and/or other creatures get rights? Is that before all the people get fair treatment, or after?
What if they abuse those rights, and start to disenfranchise Mankind, like in Terminator? (That should be a warning to us all. Google / Skynet?)
I know it's all very ethically exciting to get outraged about, but it's less a matter of what's right and more a matter of keeping them from killing us.
As for Google becoming Skynet? In the words of Admiral Robert Willard, "We don't anticipate that."
That makes me feel a whole lot better. (Microsoft then?)
I feel they are too ROI oriented to really bother.
The people who make strong AGI are probably going to be the people who are driven to do it regardless of how useful it is, just because they're obsessed.
Like crazy scientists? Obsessed with playing God? We've already seen a fair few of them, and they usually have some self defeating dynamic in their theories, (Like being batshit crazy too ahead of their time / morally repugnant)
Or maybe it will happen accidentally, I mean evolve spontaneously. I mean, it happened before, that spark of sentience, right? And we're still killing each other over differences of opinion as to who is right or wrong to blame for the event.
But saying that, I'm actually quite optimistic too, I'm just being an arsehole playing Devil's advocate for lulz. :D
Quote from: BadBeast on June 08, 2010, 12:23:54 AM
Like crazy scientists? Obsessed with playing God? We've already seen a fair few of them, and they usually have some self defeating dynamic in their theories, (Like being batshit crazy too ahead of their time / morally repugnant)
Or maybe it will happen accidentally, I mean evolve spontaneously. I mean, it happened before, that spark of sentience, right? And we're still killing each other over differences of opinion as to who is right or wrong to blame for the event.
But saying that, I'm actually quite optimistic too, I'm just being an arsehole playing Devil's advocate for lulz. :D
Can you name an AI researcher that was morally repugnant?
They seem to be mostly really nice, if a bit pedantic.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 08, 2010, 01:19:34 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on June 08, 2010, 12:23:54 AM
Like crazy scientists? Obsessed with playing God? We've already seen a fair few of them, and they usually have some self defeating dynamic in their theories, (Like being batshit crazy too ahead of their time / morally repugnant)
Or maybe it will happen accidentally, I mean evolve spontaneously. I mean, it happened before, that spark of sentience, right? And we're still killing each other over differences of opinion as to who is right or wrong to blame for the event.
But saying that, I'm actually quite optimistic too, I'm just being an arsehole playing Devil's advocate for lulz. :D
Can you name an AI researcher that was morally repugnant?
They seem to be mostly really nice, if a bit pedantic.
I was referring to crazy scientists in general, not specifically AI Researchers.
(Frankenstein?)
Not many of those outside sci fi. Sadly.
Somebody has to play god, why not scientists?
You know what I heard? That there are infinite universes and that they all have different cosmological constants. And that most of them fail horribly.
If God is going to play science, turnabout's fair play.
You only hear that most of them fail horribly, from people with a vested interest in keeping us in this one. It's propaganda, from fundamentalist anti-multiversists.
They want us to stay with the "single universe" model for as long as possible, so they can milk all the lulz from us, and sell it as an addictive mind enhancing drug, in some mirthless universe somewhere else.
...That's actually the most insane thing I've heard all day. Congratulations. :lol:
Thank you. (Still early here too)
Quote from: BadBeast on June 08, 2010, 06:51:43 AM
You only hear that most of them fail horribly, from people with a vested interest in keeping us in this one. It's propaganda, from fundamentalist anti-multiversists.
They want us to stay with the "single universe" model for as long as possible, so they can milk all the lulz from us, and sell it as an addictive mind enhancing drug, in some mirthless universe somewhere else.
:mittens:
You know BB, you might be my favorite Limey who isn't famous. This pretty much solidified it.
That sounds like my George story. :lulz: