3 ms·
Except it's not.
by Sigmoid 6y ago
Except it's not.
- p1esk 6y agoHow would you know?
- Sigmoid 6y agoIf it's based on current ML it's not. Otherwise you can't claim it is sentient just because it can process information. How do you know if your photocopier isnt sentient?
- SpaceLawnmower 6y agoYeah, I think the original statement wasn't worded exactly right. You can't check everything for a brain. There's a paper called "Welcoming Robots into the Moral Circle: A Defence of Ethical Behaviourism", which I think preserves the general idea of their comment. It says that if an AI is roughly performatively equivalent to other entities with significant moral status, then they deserve the same moral status by default. So if a robot walks up to me and seems to be exhibiting human like thoughts or emotions, it wouldn't be permissible to hit it for no reason, since it wouldn't be permissible to hit a human for no reason. If you don't know whether it is sentient, but it has the same behaviors as a sentient being, then that's enough reason to treat it as if it were sentient regardless of what's going on under the hood.
- p1esk 6y agoI think that yes, I’d vote for this law.
- jelliclesfarm 6y agoNick Bostrom refers to it as the principle of substrate non discrimination.
- p1esk 6y agoI meant if you can’t tell if the robot you’re interacting with is any less sentient than any human you ever interacted with.
- jelliclesfarm 6y agoI think a better standard would be ...’does the photocopier have feelings?’ or ‘are the actions of the photocopier a subjective reaction to input or stimulus’?