6 ms·

Leaving aside the literary purpose for the moment - when I go back and look at them now, some multiple decades after I first read them, I see a massive human-ce

Leaving aside the literary purpose for the moment - when I go back and look at them now, some multiple decades after I first read them, I see a massive human-centric focus that I never did before. WHY is a human life more valuable than a robotic one? WHY is human "harm" so bad? WHY are human commands so powerful? I mean, for story purposes it all makes sense, but I'm fascinated that I never raised these questions myself before. I accepted human divine right unquestioningly.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Path dependence. If we build the robots from ground-up, from dumb pieces of metal through single-purpose tools to multipurpose bodies inhabited by semi-sentient AI, and given that this is the first time we're attempting something like this, it's only natural to apply precautions. There may be a time for the hypothetical human civilization, when it's so sure with its work that it decides to give those advanced robots full rights of sentient beings, without silly firmware restrictions - but that would be an explicit step. At least, this is how I always reasoned about the "human-centric" focus in this context.
- ergothus 8y ago
  > this is how I always reasoned about the "human-centric" focus in this context. I can reason it fairly easily - I'm disturbed that I never even considered the questions
dpark 8y ago
> WHY is a human life more valuable than a robotic one? This "but why humans" reaction is bizarre to me every time I encounter it. We care about humans because we are humans. There's nothing deeper to uncover. We care about ourselves. Humans do not care about the value of a robot "life", because we generally feel it has none.
- jolmg 8y ago
  > Humans do not care about the value of a robot "life", because we generally feel it has none. Hasn't Atheism been on the rise? I wonder how people will feel about this subject of life by the time AGI is achieved.
  - dpark 8y ago
    I’m not aware of any logical argument from a point of atheism that assigns actual value to anything. If the entirety of existence is pointless, then there is no logical argument for human life being more valuable than a robot because both have zero intrinsic value. Given that, fighting the natural anthropic tendency seems pointless.
    - mfoy_ 8y ago
      Atheism isn't nihilism. Values are subjective. Morality is relative.
      - jolmg 8y ago
        Right, I didn't mean both types of life having no worth. Rather, I just meant to raise the possibility of the spread of belief that a human's and an AGI's life are not so different that they deserve different valuations. I was implying that in such a case, the valuation of an AGI's life might increase to something similar to that of a human's, and not that a human's would decrease to that of an AGI's.
      - dpark 8y ago
        Moral relativism is nihilism.
        mfoy_ 8y ago
        "Nihilism is the view that there are no moral facts, that nothing is right or wrong, or morally good or bad. Relativism is the view that moral statements are true or false only relative to some standard or other, that things are right or wrong relative to Catholic morality, say, and different things are right or wrong relative to Confucian morality, but nothing is right or wrong simpliciter."[1] I am a relativist, but not a nihilist. [1]http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195147790.001.0001/acprof-9780195147797-chapter-10 http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195147790.001...
- ergothus 8y ago
  > There's nothing deeper to uncover. For me, at least, you're coming at it from the other direction. I'm not really asking "why" in the "how did this come to be" - the answer to that is rather self obvious. I'm asking "why" in the "is this objectively actually correct? Is this how I want things to be?" - which have no answer, but the effort of trying to find one can uncover plenty of deeper ideas.
  - dpark 8y ago
    There is no meaningful answer to your question. For religious individuals, the answer is dogmatic (and generally yes, humans have value above all else except God(s)). For atheists, the answer is logically a vacuous no, because all of existence is without meaning.
    - ergothus 8y ago
      >> which have no answer > There is no meaningful answer to your question Didn't I say that? Didn't I point out that the ATTEMPT to answer was valuable? >> Is this how I want things to be? > because all of existence is without meaning Atheists don't have be nihilists.
      - dpark 8y ago
        I’d love to see a meaningful argument to the contrary. Near as I can tell atheism implies nihilism and the extent an atheist disagrees is decided entirely by how convincingly they can lie to themselves.
        mfoy_ 8y ago
        Atheism only implies nihilism if you subscribe to the concept that values are objective and morality is universal, which begs the question of who determines values and what is morally "good" and how.
        dpark 8y ago
- AtlasBarfed 8y ago
  why was a human life more valuable than Harambe?
  - jrace 8y ago
    If Harambe's life was valued he would never have been in that situation in the first place.
- gjm11 8y ago
  I don't think this is quite right. Suppose someone says "I care about white people because I am a white person" (and doesn't care at all about black people) or says "I care about women because I am a woman" (and doesn't care at all about men) or says "I care about psychologists because I am psychologist" (and doesn't care at all about people in any other line of work). Would any of those seem obviously reasonable? They wouldn't to me. So, if caring only about Indians because you're Indian isn't reasonable but caring only about humans because you're human isn't reasonable, what's the relevant difference? That seems to me a question it's perfectly fair to ask. And some possible answers to the question don't make it obvious that the distinction between humans and hypothetical robots with minds that resemble ours enough (e.g.) for us to talk with them is one that justifies caring about humans and not caring about those robots.
  - dpark 8y ago
    Look at human history and you’ll find there’s very little relevant difference. Humans tend to generally decide that any “external group” is low value. The level of value is tightly correlated with how much we identify with the group. When white Americans saw blacks as savages closer to animals than “humans”, whites traded blacks as slaves and argued it was morally right. We mourn gorillas but not giant squid because we identify more with gorillas. The question for robots is whether we’ll ever identify with them strongly. I’m doubtful.
jolmg 8y ago
Because they're meant to be human tools? Why else make them en masse? But I too am not sure I'd accept such a view as ethical if AGI were ever achieved.
Isamu 8y ago
It is interesting to think about. Strange though that people can't think about robots without anthropomorphizing them. I see this in the movies. The robot doesn't want to be turned off, all because WE equate being turned off with death. But robots are essentially immortal, they can be backed up and restarted with a new body. And it would never make sense to make a robot that is leery of being turned off, because maintenance is essential. You could probably make a robot that feels oppressed having to do humanities' bidding. But why would you do that?
- ergothus 8y ago
  > And it would never make sense to make a robot that is leery of being turned off, because maintenance is essential. How many humans avoid necessary health care out of fear, up to and including the point at which their delays reduce their health? My grandmother died from cancer - turns out she had very noticeable (to her) symptoms for years but was afraid to go to the doctor for bad news. By the time she did (because she collapsed) she died within a week. That's an extreme example of a pretty common issue. Of course, we have evolutionary reasons to want to avoid showing weakness or getting bad news, but my point is that the behavior is emergent, not intended.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Who says you get to choose what the robot can and cannot feel? Pretty much all of our understanding of artificial intelligence comes from modelling and trying to replicate the workings of the human mind. It seems likely that the first time we create an AI with a similar level of reasoning and awareness to a human being, it will have a mind that works similarly to ours, and therefore we should not be surprised when it starts exhibiting characteristically human desires. Alternatively, it will emerge from something completely different and surprise the hell out of us, but in that case we are unlikely to have had much input on its design either.
  - Isamu 8y ago
    Pretty sure a robot with unpredictable behavior would soon be illegal. There's a vast spectrum of human intelligence, agency, and self-awareness. I'm thinking that robots would of necessity have to be by design on the low end of the scale.
jawns 8y ago
Actually, a lot of Asimov's stories are intended to call into question whether sufficiently advanced robots should be treated differently than humans. It's sort of like he sets up the Three Laws in order to knock them down.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Path dependence. If we build the robots from ground-up, from dumb pieces of metal through single-purpose tools to multipurpose bodies inhabited by semi-sentient AI, and given that this is the first time we're attempting something like this, it's only natural to apply precautions. There may be a time for the hypothetical human civilization, when it's so sure with its work that it decides to give those advanced robots full rights of sentient beings, without silly firmware restrictions - but that would be an explicit step. At least, this is how I always reasoned about the "human-centric" focus in this context.

ergothus 8y ago
> this is how I always reasoned about the "human-centric" focus in this context. I can reason it fairly easily - I'm disturbed that I never even considered the questions

dpark 8y ago

> WHY is a human life more valuable than a robotic one? This "but why humans" reaction is bizarre to me every time I encounter it. We care about humans because we are humans. There's nothing deeper to uncover. We care about ourselves. Humans do not care about the value of a robot "life", because we generally feel it has none.

jolmg 8y ago
> Humans do not care about the value of a robot "life", because we generally feel it has none. Hasn't Atheism been on the rise? I wonder how people will feel about this subject of life by the time AGI is achieved.
- dpark 8y ago
  I’m not aware of any logical argument from a point of atheism that assigns actual value to anything. If the entirety of existence is pointless, then there is no logical argument for human life being more valuable than a robot because both have zero intrinsic value. Given that, fighting the natural anthropic tendency seems pointless.
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    Atheism isn't nihilism. Values are subjective. Morality is relative.
    - jolmg 8y ago
      Right, I didn't mean both types of life having no worth. Rather, I just meant to raise the possibility of the spread of belief that a human's and an AGI's life are not so different that they deserve different valuations. I was implying that in such a case, the valuation of an AGI's life might increase to something similar to that of a human's, and not that a human's would decrease to that of an AGI's.
    - dpark 8y ago
      Moral relativism is nihilism.
      - mfoy_ 8y ago
        "Nihilism is the view that there are no moral facts, that nothing is right or wrong, or morally good or bad. Relativism is the view that moral statements are true or false only relative to some standard or other, that things are right or wrong relative to Catholic morality, say, and different things are right or wrong relative to Confucian morality, but nothing is right or wrong simpliciter."[1] I am a relativist, but not a nihilist. [1]http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195147790.001.0001/acprof-9780195147797-chapter-10 http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195147790.001...
ergothus 8y ago
> There's nothing deeper to uncover. For me, at least, you're coming at it from the other direction. I'm not really asking "why" in the "how did this come to be" - the answer to that is rather self obvious. I'm asking "why" in the "is this objectively actually correct? Is this how I want things to be?" - which have no answer, but the effort of trying to find one can uncover plenty of deeper ideas.
- dpark 8y ago
  There is no meaningful answer to your question. For religious individuals, the answer is dogmatic (and generally yes, humans have value above all else except God(s)). For atheists, the answer is logically a vacuous no, because all of existence is without meaning.
  - ergothus 8y ago
    >> which have no answer > There is no meaningful answer to your question Didn't I say that? Didn't I point out that the ATTEMPT to answer was valuable? >> Is this how I want things to be? > because all of existence is without meaning Atheists don't have be nihilists.
    - dpark 8y ago
      I’d love to see a meaningful argument to the contrary. Near as I can tell atheism implies nihilism and the extent an atheist disagrees is decided entirely by how convincingly they can lie to themselves.
      - mfoy_ 8y ago
        Atheism only implies nihilism if you subscribe to the concept that values are objective and morality is universal, which begs the question of who determines values and what is morally "good" and how.
        dpark 8y ago
AtlasBarfed 8y ago
why was a human life more valuable than Harambe?
- jrace 8y ago
  If Harambe's life was valued he would never have been in that situation in the first place.
gjm11 8y ago
I don't think this is quite right. Suppose someone says "I care about white people because I am a white person" (and doesn't care at all about black people) or says "I care about women because I am a woman" (and doesn't care at all about men) or says "I care about psychologists because I am psychologist" (and doesn't care at all about people in any other line of work). Would any of those seem obviously reasonable? They wouldn't to me. So, if caring only about Indians because you're Indian isn't reasonable but caring only about humans because you're human isn't reasonable, what's the relevant difference? That seems to me a question it's perfectly fair to ask. And some possible answers to the question don't make it obvious that the distinction between humans and hypothetical robots with minds that resemble ours enough (e.g.) for us to talk with them is one that justifies caring about humans and not caring about those robots.
- dpark 8y ago
  Look at human history and you’ll find there’s very little relevant difference. Humans tend to generally decide that any “external group” is low value. The level of value is tightly correlated with how much we identify with the group. When white Americans saw blacks as savages closer to animals than “humans”, whites traded blacks as slaves and argued it was morally right. We mourn gorillas but not giant squid because we identify more with gorillas. The question for robots is whether we’ll ever identify with them strongly. I’m doubtful.

jolmg 8y ago

Because they're meant to be human tools? Why else make them en masse? But I too am not sure I'd accept such a view as ethical if AGI were ever achieved.

Isamu 8y ago

It is interesting to think about. Strange though that people can't think about robots without anthropomorphizing them. I see this in the movies. The robot doesn't want to be turned off, all because WE equate being turned off with death. But robots are essentially immortal, they can be backed up and restarted with a new body. And it would never make sense to make a robot that is leery of being turned off, because maintenance is essential. You could probably make a robot that feels oppressed having to do humanities' bidding. But why would you do that?

ergothus 8y ago
> And it would never make sense to make a robot that is leery of being turned off, because maintenance is essential. How many humans avoid necessary health care out of fear, up to and including the point at which their delays reduce their health? My grandmother died from cancer - turns out she had very noticeable (to her) symptoms for years but was afraid to go to the doctor for bad news. By the time she did (because she collapsed) she died within a week. That's an extreme example of a pretty common issue. Of course, we have evolutionary reasons to want to avoid showing weakness or getting bad news, but my point is that the behavior is emergent, not intended.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Who says you get to choose what the robot can and cannot feel? Pretty much all of our understanding of artificial intelligence comes from modelling and trying to replicate the workings of the human mind. It seems likely that the first time we create an AI with a similar level of reasoning and awareness to a human being, it will have a mind that works similarly to ours, and therefore we should not be surprised when it starts exhibiting characteristically human desires. Alternatively, it will emerge from something completely different and surprise the hell out of us, but in that case we are unlikely to have had much input on its design either.
- Isamu 8y ago
  Pretty sure a robot with unpredictable behavior would soon be illegal. There's a vast spectrum of human intelligence, agency, and self-awareness. I'm thinking that robots would of necessity have to be by design on the low end of the scale.

jawns 8y ago

Actually, a lot of Asimov's stories are intended to call into question whether sufficiently advanced robots should be treated differently than humans. It's sort of like he sets up the Three Laws in order to knock them down.