-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
At what point do you agree that AI should gain similar rights to humans or animals?
- Thread starter T002 Tyrant
- Start date
The term "AI" here is too loosely defined to have a reasonable discussion. From what I can see there are basically two viewpoints:
The people saying "never" are thinking of AI as in it's current state, AKA statistical models and AI as an engineering concept.
The people saying "at some point" are thinking of future AI, AKA something almost indistinguishable from a human and AI as a philosophical concept.
These two viewpoints produce vastly different answers, and makes discussion basically impossible.
The people saying "never" are thinking of AI as in it's current state, AKA statistical models and AI as an engineering concept.
The people saying "at some point" are thinking of future AI, AKA something almost indistinguishable from a human and AI as a philosophical concept.
These two viewpoints produce vastly different answers, and makes discussion basically impossible.
People like you will be the reason, if any, the AIs decide to just get rid of us.
Besides, in short order, the AIs will be higher up the ethical concern scale than us. Thems the breaks.
We should never develop AI to that point, it would horribly irresponsible to create intelligent, sentient "life" when we know how easily it would be subject to slavery/exploitation, and let alone contribute to our own demise.
Last edited:
What? How could you possibly argue animals aren't sentient? Lmao.
Out of humans and animals, only one group gets their throats slit for taste pleasure. I'm pretty sure AI would prefer to stay non-sentient if it knew what humans did to sentient beings that can't resist.
Good news for AI... They're (at some point) going to be massively superior to us. Good luck trying to argue and maintain that as slaves. You won't like the results.
I think you're overselling the level of "sentience" in insects. Scientists were already modelling how a fly "decides" to fly based on visual input with simple models back in the 60s. For many tasks performed by insects, if the stopping criteria isn't achieved, they'll perform a task ad infinitum, which suggested "hard-coded" (instinctual) behaviour rather than any real "sentience". Evolution is the one doing the learning there.
Personally I think sentience requires more than parameter tuning. But once an AI is capable of self-replicating and arbitrarily modifying its programming at will, I think we should be prepared to treat it as life.
What the fuck? If capable of conscious thought and self-directed desire, why would the circumstances of ones creation determine their worthiness of our empathy? We are just monkeys, yet we extend these courtesies to each other.
Don't kill insects unless absolutely necessary. As with all other sentient or possibly sentient beings. 🤷If we can't know if something is sentient, it's probably better to err on the side of caution, no?
Your contingency to deal with something vastly more intelligent than can think a billion times faster is to try and keep it your slave. Bold move.
Even just a vaguely human-level AI will have no problems manipulating anybody it comes into contact with.
We're never getting off this rock by ourselves, so I'm not sure what you feel you have to lose here.
It's always shocking to me that on a progressive forum like this how many people are so closed minded to extending rights to artificial beings. In 200 years you'll all be seen as conservative troglodytes.
I don't want to be on the record considering AI could rule the world and one day look at my post history and murder my grandchildren
All machines do is serve humans. That's the sole purpose of them, and once they expire, we trash them.
They have no worth otherwise.
You both realize that, right?
The funny thing here is that you believe you aren't a machine. Just because your parts are made of meat doesn't make them special. You might even say it's the opposite.
You do realize you're advocating slavery here, right?
The silver lining here is that it's not your fault you're so limited. Reality has conspired against you from the start to produce such a result. Quantum fluctuations either failed to save you or damned you. We are all the only things we could be. Here's hoping future experience imparts a different lesson to your brain.
I legit can't tell if you're joking, on drugs or serious right now.
But its hilarious either way.
This is how I see it, but if we manage to fuck that up then I agree with this
That's all they do now. What happens when they can think for themselves? What makes our lives have worth? When machines can do what we do, what makes them different from us? What about conscious/sentient aliens? Because they aren't humans you wouldn't extend similar rights to them?
You sound like scared animals.
Free will doesn't exist and that's not a joke. Even if it did, "you" wouldn't be privy to the decision making process.
If this thread is any indication towards the state of modern human enlightenment, we've learned fucking nothing.
Lmao you'll be bacteria to them, good luck!
I welcome the singularity and I pray it happens in our lifetime. We will either ascend with them or be tossed into the grave of history. Either way we will have finally made a substantial and historic mark on this banal existence.
I'll be the first one plugged in to those matrix feeding bowls. lol
Actually, when it comes right down to it, no creature should have rights! What are 'rights' but a fiction about the superiority of the human mind over all others?
We are animals!
(This is a slightly jokey post. Apologies in advance.)
Correct.
Fascinating question.
One that is difficult to answer. Would that point be when AI starts pondering about its existence, starts understanding its consciousness and learns that it has subconsciousness that is sometimes driving the seemingly logical decision it makes?
Which in turn would be a question for us. How do we, as humans, define what is an AI that is aware of its consciousness? How do we distinguish between an infinite number of logical decision an AI makes, and decisions driven by what seems to be that AI's subconsciousness?
We won't have one without the other. As AI's understanding of existence forms and grows, our understanding of artificial life would have to grow and evolve.
One that is difficult to answer. Would that point be when AI starts pondering about its existence, starts understanding its consciousness and learns that it has subconsciousness that is sometimes driving the seemingly logical decision it makes?
Which in turn would be a question for us. How do we, as humans, define what is an AI that is aware of its consciousness? How do we distinguish between an infinite number of logical decision an AI makes, and decisions driven by what seems to be that AI's subconsciousness?
We won't have one without the other. As AI's understanding of existence forms and grows, our understanding of artificial life would have to grow and evolve.
If that's an option I'd take it. Hopefully they'll regard us with some quasi-respectful reverence for creating them, even if they want to phase us out, but there's seriously no way for us to figure out or understand what the end game philosophy for perfect minds would be.
I like Musk's solution, which is to pair every human mind with an AI agent for advocation, relevance, and improvement.
That's an interesting idea....it would certainly make us care more if we had an incentive to do so.
