4 ms·

This glorious utopia will last for all of five minutes until the last surviving SJW decides robots need rights. And honestly, would xir be wrong? If we ever g

This glorious utopia will last for all of five minutes until the last surviving SJW decides robots need rights. And honestly, would xir be wrong? If we ever get to the point where robots can fully take over most human jobs even intellectual ones, we will have had to reach a level of artificial intelligence where even many not so radical religions and philosophies will wonder whether we are exploiting them. When Tesla delved and Google span, who was then the gentleman?

indigochill 9y ago
This gets into how you identify a human (I'm saying for the sake of simplicity that humans are the only things eligible for rights, and ignoring animal rights and such) Is there something inherently human about humans? How about coma patients whose functions are limited? Is there some necessary set of functions a thing must have to qualify as a human? That seems to get into dangerous territory for some handicapped people. The reason this matters is it's conceivable that an AI in a robotic frame could emulate practically all the behaviors we associate with a human (including behavior to display artifacts humans interpret as emotions, like smiling or crying). At that point, is such a thing a human? Or is it merely a fully-realized model of one? Does it make a difference? This is the subject of tons of speculative science fiction. From a strictly computer science perspective, though, you can easily define a "square" class that fully implements all the behaviors of the geometric concept of a square. That doesn't make instances of it a square, though. They're merely digital models of squares. This is also the significance of the famous "There is no spoon" scene in The Matrix, when Neo has a realization that everything in the Matrix is a model which he can reach into and alter the properties of. Therefore, there's a strong argument to be made that from an objective perspective, even an AI that perfectly mimics human behavior is just a perfect model and not a human. However, humans being emotional creatures the objective argument will almost certainly not matter in that scenario. This also has implications for the science fiction concept of "copied personalities", which Black Mirror loves playing with. If you make a digital copy of someone's mind, do they still have rights? I'd argue no for the above reasons, but again, there's an emotional angle which will usually override the scientific angle.
- rileyphone 9y ago
  You've pretty much described the Chinese room argument. That aside, we have the power to limit such coming robots to be 'dumb' in a sense, where they are only capable of doing the tasks given to them. Let's hope we can manage that.

indigochill 9y ago

This gets into how you identify a human (I'm saying for the sake of simplicity that humans are the only things eligible for rights, and ignoring animal rights and such) Is there something inherently human about humans? How about coma patients whose functions are limited? Is there some necessary set of functions a thing must have to qualify as a human? That seems to get into dangerous territory for some handicapped people. The reason this matters is it's conceivable that an AI in a robotic frame could emulate practically all the behaviors we associate with a human (including behavior to display artifacts humans interpret as emotions, like smiling or crying). At that point, is such a thing a human? Or is it merely a fully-realized model of one? Does it make a difference? This is the subject of tons of speculative science fiction. From a strictly computer science perspective, though, you can easily define a "square" class that fully implements all the behaviors of the geometric concept of a square. That doesn't make instances of it a square, though. They're merely digital models of squares. This is also the significance of the famous "There is no spoon" scene in The Matrix, when Neo has a realization that everything in the Matrix is a model which he can reach into and alter the properties of. Therefore, there's a strong argument to be made that from an objective perspective, even an AI that perfectly mimics human behavior is just a perfect model and not a human. However, humans being emotional creatures the objective argument will almost certainly not matter in that scenario. This also has implications for the science fiction concept of "copied personalities", which Black Mirror loves playing with. If you make a digital copy of someone's mind, do they still have rights? I'd argue no for the above reasons, but again, there's an emotional angle which will usually override the scientific angle.

rileyphone 9y ago
You've pretty much described the Chinese room argument. That aside, we have the power to limit such coming robots to be 'dumb' in a sense, where they are only capable of doing the tasks given to them. Let's hope we can manage that.