3 ms·

> although the rights of machine intelligence have not yet entered mainstream debate Thankfully, because the idea that machine intelligence should have rights

> although the rights of machine intelligence have not yet entered mainstream debate Thankfully, because the idea that machine intelligence should have rights is based on a fundamental and obvious mistake: first they're not alive, second they've not evolved to feel pain or any other drive related to being alive. You can't literally kill an artificial intelligence. What if you tried? Joke's on you, I have a snapshot from 10s ago. What if I destroy that snapshot? Joke's still on you, I have a full backup from last night. What if I destroy that backup too? Dude, I got an offlined tape in the vault. And anyway it was distributed to begin with.

andrewflnr 6y ago
You make a lot of assumptions, e.g. that the AI is, in practice, being thoroughly backed up, and that it's even feasible to back it up online given its size and update bandwidth. More abstractly, deleting a day of memories is still pretty close to a form of death. You better believe I'd feel weird if you restored me from a day-old backup. There is a version of me that died, and I never get to remember that day of experiences. Your dismissal of the possibility of killing an AI only applies in a small slice of possible scenarios. Your first argument is a lot stronger.
- himinlomax 6y ago
  > More abstractly, deleting a day of memories is still pretty close to a form of death Not only is it not for a living being, but it's definitely not for a non-living device.
m4rtink 6y ago
Replace AI in your example with the consciousness of a living person you copied (perhaps destructively) into a computer simulation. Do your conclusions still stand ? And an actual AI migh be as complex and sensitive as such a copy of a live person or possibly even more. (edit: fixed typos :P)
- himinlomax 6y ago
  > Do ypu conclusions still stand ? Indeed they do, but the situation is different enough in other ways to have other implications. Addendum: the fact that a transferred consciousness could inherit evolved traits such as pain (psychological if not physical), fear of death and so on would change the analysis as well. Those have no reason to exist in a constructed consciousness / GPAI.
  - m4rtink 6y ago
    Good point in the addendum - these could also influence all those AI-takeover theories/stories as they very often are basically about AI self preservation instincts which it might not even have. Or at least not in normal form - eq. if it makes sure enough instances are kept running somewhere or are backed up and could be run it might not care about the rest, significantly reducing chances of conflict.
sammax 6y ago
So if humans became immortal* and couldn't feel pain anymore then they should not have rights anymore? * I assume that with "alive" you mean "can die", because I see no other reason why "being alive" could be relevant to your argument.
- himinlomax 6y ago
  If humans were completely different from what we call humans, they would indeed have to be treated completely differently.
  - sammax 6y ago
    That's such a dumb non-statement. The question is not "should we treat them differently" but "should they have rights at all".
    - himinlomax 6y ago
      They should have rights, but they need not, indeed they cannot be the same as for mortal beings. Consider: falsely imprisoning someone whose lifetime is limited for years is bad in that it's extremely unpleasant, but also because it deprives them of a finite resource. The former is true for an immortal being, not the latter obviously.

andrewflnr 6y ago

You make a lot of assumptions, e.g. that the AI is, in practice, being thoroughly backed up, and that it's even feasible to back it up online given its size and update bandwidth. More abstractly, deleting a day of memories is still pretty close to a form of death. You better believe I'd feel weird if you restored me from a day-old backup. There is a version of me that died, and I never get to remember that day of experiences. Your dismissal of the possibility of killing an AI only applies in a small slice of possible scenarios. Your first argument is a lot stronger.

himinlomax 6y ago
> More abstractly, deleting a day of memories is still pretty close to a form of death Not only is it not for a living being, but it's definitely not for a non-living device.

m4rtink 6y ago

Replace AI in your example with the consciousness of a living person you copied (perhaps destructively) into a computer simulation. Do your conclusions still stand ? And an actual AI migh be as complex and sensitive as such a copy of a live person or possibly even more. (edit: fixed typos :P)

himinlomax 6y ago
> Do ypu conclusions still stand ? Indeed they do, but the situation is different enough in other ways to have other implications. Addendum: the fact that a transferred consciousness could inherit evolved traits such as pain (psychological if not physical), fear of death and so on would change the analysis as well. Those have no reason to exist in a constructed consciousness / GPAI.
- m4rtink 6y ago
  Good point in the addendum - these could also influence all those AI-takeover theories/stories as they very often are basically about AI self preservation instincts which it might not even have. Or at least not in normal form - eq. if it makes sure enough instances are kept running somewhere or are backed up and could be run it might not care about the rest, significantly reducing chances of conflict.

sammax 6y ago

So if humans became immortal* and couldn't feel pain anymore then they should not have rights anymore? * I assume that with "alive" you mean "can die", because I see no other reason why "being alive" could be relevant to your argument.

himinlomax 6y ago
If humans were completely different from what we call humans, they would indeed have to be treated completely differently.
- sammax 6y ago
  That's such a dumb non-statement. The question is not "should we treat them differently" but "should they have rights at all".
  - himinlomax 6y ago
    They should have rights, but they need not, indeed they cannot be the same as for mortal beings. Consider: falsely imprisoning someone whose lifetime is limited for years is bad in that it's extremely unpleasant, but also because it deprives them of a finite resource. The former is true for an immortal being, not the latter obviously.