28 ms·

This is part of why I think a ban on humanoid and even animal-like robots should be considered. Our intuitions are leading us astray here and we are going to st

This is part of why I think a ban on humanoid and even animal-like robots should be considered. Our intuitions are leading us astray here and we are going to start extending rights to things that don’t have subjective experience, but may insist to us that they do. It’s going to create intense confusion and an extremely inefficient bureaucracy that will stifle innovation.

manquer 4y ago
Humans are good at anthropomorphizing objects even if they are not humanoid. Not making it exactly human/animal like won't help that much, the underlying features that make the bot useful such as graceful moment, well enunciated speech or deep conversation will make it feel more human like no matter what form they take.
adwn 4y ago
> This is part of why I think a ban on humanoid and even animal-like robots should be considered. [...] It’s going to create intense confusion and an extremely inefficient bureaucracy that will stifle innovation. So you want introduce laws and regulations that stifle innovation in order to prevent inefficient bureaucracies that stifle innovation?
anotheracctfo 4y ago
Some idiot found the image of Jesus in a slice of toast, so lets ban toast.
fzzzy 4y ago
How do you know they don't have subjective experience?
- mdp2021 4y ago
  Because we will have the blueprints, and because there is a definite possibility to have sane people test for emergent qualities.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Because there is no "they" to have it.
  - fzzzy 4y ago
    You seem very certain. Why?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Ask it, "Why is your favorite color yellow?", "Why do you have no favorite color?", "What is your favorite color?", in succession. It will have what seems like a sensible answer for each one, and none will have anything to do with any other. Exactly zero of the things necessary to be more than a look-up table are happening.
      - drekk 4y ago
        Some humans do this too, the psychology Scrabble word for it is confabulation. Are those people not conscious? We might call them an edge case or what have you, but dismissing them as automata seems harsh. The point is that if a chatbot gets sophisticated enough to say these things we can't dismiss them out of hand due to things like logical inconsistencies. Humans have tons of those. It's not a large leap to assume approximating consciousness with so little would have similar bugs and shortcuts. I think if the chatbot is asking you to be nice you should re-evaluate why you're being a dick to a piece of software and not trying to prove that it ultimately doesn't matter because the thing isn't a person. Same goes for kicking the Boston Dynamics robot. Your drywall isn't even sonething people anthropomorphize, but punch holes in it and you'll see how their perception of you changes. How we treat objects bleeds into how we treat one another. Indeed, some of us were and are still considered property.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        You are not getting this. Your spell/grammar checker is not offended at your cuss words even if it flags them as not recommended. The Boston Dynamics dog took the kick as input to its dynamic stability algorithm, and instantly forgot it without a trace. What people think about you for punching the wall has absolutely nothing to do with the wall, and everything to do with your character. If your chatbot regurgitates a request to be nice, that means exactly as much as your Magic 8 Ball saying "Answer cloudy, ask again later."

manquer 4y ago

Humans are good at anthropomorphizing objects even if they are not humanoid. Not making it exactly human/animal like won't help that much, the underlying features that make the bot useful such as graceful moment, well enunciated speech or deep conversation will make it feel more human like no matter what form they take.

adwn 4y ago

> This is part of why I think a ban on humanoid and even animal-like robots should be considered. [...] It’s going to create intense confusion and an extremely inefficient bureaucracy that will stifle innovation. So you want introduce laws and regulations that stifle innovation in order to prevent inefficient bureaucracies that stifle innovation?

anotheracctfo 4y ago

Some idiot found the image of Jesus in a slice of toast, so lets ban toast.

fzzzy 4y ago

How do you know they don't have subjective experience?

mdp2021 4y ago
Because we will have the blueprints, and because there is a definite possibility to have sane people test for emergent qualities.
ncmncm 4y ago
Because there is no "they" to have it.
- fzzzy 4y ago
  You seem very certain. Why?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Ask it, "Why is your favorite color yellow?", "Why do you have no favorite color?", "What is your favorite color?", in succession. It will have what seems like a sensible answer for each one, and none will have anything to do with any other. Exactly zero of the things necessary to be more than a look-up table are happening.
    - drekk 4y ago
      Some humans do this too, the psychology Scrabble word for it is confabulation. Are those people not conscious? We might call them an edge case or what have you, but dismissing them as automata seems harsh. The point is that if a chatbot gets sophisticated enough to say these things we can't dismiss them out of hand due to things like logical inconsistencies. Humans have tons of those. It's not a large leap to assume approximating consciousness with so little would have similar bugs and shortcuts. I think if the chatbot is asking you to be nice you should re-evaluate why you're being a dick to a piece of software and not trying to prove that it ultimately doesn't matter because the thing isn't a person. Same goes for kicking the Boston Dynamics robot. Your drywall isn't even sonething people anthropomorphize, but punch holes in it and you'll see how their perception of you changes. How we treat objects bleeds into how we treat one another. Indeed, some of us were and are still considered property.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        You are not getting this. Your spell/grammar checker is not offended at your cuss words even if it flags them as not recommended. The Boston Dynamics dog took the kick as input to its dynamic stability algorithm, and instantly forgot it without a trace. What people think about you for punching the wall has absolutely nothing to do with the wall, and everything to do with your character. If your chatbot regurgitates a request to be nice, that means exactly as much as your Magic 8 Ball saying "Answer cloudy, ask again later."