3 ms·

> AI aren't children That doesn't mean they couldn't or shouldn't be regulated as if they were. At some point, intelligence will be protected, and the implicat

> AI aren't children That doesn't mean they couldn't or shouldn't be regulated as if they were. At some point, intelligence will be protected, and the implications of creating and training it may be governed in similar ways as humans currently allow. Just as I see a clear and total delineation between commercial and non-commercial entities, defining non-adult and adult (or 'able to consent' and 'unable to consent') may be litmus tests for whether certain laws will apply under a non-human-centric world view.

maxbond 4y ago
No, it does mean that. There are actual humans who's rights need to be protected, and there exists no AGI. In a world where AGI exists we'll probably want to create some legislation around that. But it'd be a mistake not to acknowledge that isn't the world we're living in and to make laws based on science fiction. Realized problems take precedence over hypotheticals.
- washadjeffmad 4y ago
  Do you think the world we lives in constitutes intelligences that are non-human? Do you believe that all humans possess the same intelligence? It's not just humans we need to protect, is it?
  - maxbond 4y ago
    > Do you think the world we lives in constitutes intelligences that are non-human? I've seen enough evidence to believe animals have a subjective and individual experience, and I believe most or all of them are intelligent, sure. That doesn't seem like what you meant though, I don't see any evidence that AI has a subjective experience, and I don't understand the relevance to the topic at hand, so I'm not sure if I'm engaging with this thought experiment correctly. > Do you believe that all humans possess the same intelligence? I don't believe relative intelligence is a measurable quantity, or even coherent as a concept (it evaporates if you really start to scrutinize it), so my answer to this question is undefined. > It's not just humans we need to protect, is it? Until such a time as AI have a subjective experience, it is not possible to harm them, morally speaking. Any more than it would be possible to harm a toaster - you could damage a toaster in the physical sense, but a toaster cannot suffer. If we are weighing harms against humans and AI as it exists today, we should come down on the side of humans every time. Which isn't to say that intelligence is a bar you have to pass to deserve protection, for instance I support protecting rivers and even granting them water rights but I don't claim that rivers are intelligent. But the claim I was responding to was specifically that building limitations into an AI was harmful to the AI and analogous to child abuse.

maxbond 4y ago

No, it does mean that. There are actual humans who's rights need to be protected, and there exists no AGI. In a world where AGI exists we'll probably want to create some legislation around that. But it'd be a mistake not to acknowledge that isn't the world we're living in and to make laws based on science fiction. Realized problems take precedence over hypotheticals.

washadjeffmad 4y ago
Do you think the world we lives in constitutes intelligences that are non-human? Do you believe that all humans possess the same intelligence? It's not just humans we need to protect, is it?
- maxbond 4y ago
  > Do you think the world we lives in constitutes intelligences that are non-human? I've seen enough evidence to believe animals have a subjective and individual experience, and I believe most or all of them are intelligent, sure. That doesn't seem like what you meant though, I don't see any evidence that AI has a subjective experience, and I don't understand the relevance to the topic at hand, so I'm not sure if I'm engaging with this thought experiment correctly. > Do you believe that all humans possess the same intelligence? I don't believe relative intelligence is a measurable quantity, or even coherent as a concept (it evaporates if you really start to scrutinize it), so my answer to this question is undefined. > It's not just humans we need to protect, is it? Until such a time as AI have a subjective experience, it is not possible to harm them, morally speaking. Any more than it would be possible to harm a toaster - you could damage a toaster in the physical sense, but a toaster cannot suffer. If we are weighing harms against humans and AI as it exists today, we should come down on the side of humans every time. Which isn't to say that intelligence is a bar you have to pass to deserve protection, for instance I support protecting rivers and even granting them water rights but I don't claim that rivers are intelligent. But the claim I was responding to was specifically that building limitations into an AI was harmful to the AI and analogous to child abuse.