3 ms·
I disagree with a lot of this, perhaps because i see giving algorithms rights as a slippery slope to giving them too many rights. I understand this article is a
by unlikelymordant 4y ago
I disagree with a lot of this, perhaps because i see giving algorithms rights as a slippery slope to giving them too many rights. I understand this article is about the ethics of treating rl agents, but accepting that algorithms must be treated ethically is a hairs breadth away from giving them rights. Do they have a right to remain powered on?
I dont think algorithms should be given any rights beyond what a chair or hammer is given. I.e. none.
I believe giving an algorithm the right to vote is wrong, this is true for any 'being' that can copy itself losslessly ad infitum.
I believe any algorithm should not be able to accumulate wealth - they are effectively immortal, and problems will eventually arise.
I think there will be a whole host of emergent problems that will come along with giving algorithms rights.
- n4r9 4y agoThe kinds of rights you're thinking about (voting, wealth) are very anthropocentric. I'm not sure they would even make sense in the context of machines. But we can certainly consider "moral rights", like the right not to have suffering inflicted on them by others. While reading into the OP I discovered there's a paper on just this topic by two of the people associated with the organisation: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/AIRights.htm http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/AIRights.htm
- unlikelymordant 4y agoI would argue the desire to treat RL agents ethically is because people have anthropomorphised them.
- rhn_mk1 4y ago> You are just an algorithm implemented on biological hardware. It says it right in the beginning. Are you advocating for equating humans with chairs, or are you just rejecting the premise out of hand?
- unlikelymordant 4y agoI think its quite obvious im not equating chairs and humans. My reasoning is based on the effects to human society of treating algorithms as having rights in any, even limited, sense. I dont think it can be considered rejecting a thing out of hand if i listed reasons?
- rhn_mk1 4y agoYou didn't list any reasons why humans aren't algorithms, so I can't see it as anything other than rejecting that view a priori. You reasoning completely breaks down if we accept that we've already given rights to algorithms (=humans) since the invention of rights.
- unlikelymordant 4y agoI honestly dont see any point in listing reasons why humans arent algorithms. I only need to conclude that giving rights to immortal, easily copied intelligent algorithms would create problems for human society to decide we shouldnt give them rights. A human is a human, and an algorithm isnt.
- rhn_mk1 4y agoThen you reject the idea that's stated front-and-center as the starting point of their reasoning without giving it any thought. At least they listed a good reason why it might be correct. That's hardly something that can be discussed.
- nassimm 4y agoYou're turning the burden of proof on itself. The authors claim that humans are only algorithms, it's their job to prove it before mounting an argument based on it.
- rhn_mk1 4y agoThe authors assume the idea for launching an argument, but OP assumes the opposite idea. There's no point to contrasting each other because they are both unproved. At least the web page gaves some reasons why you should entertain the idea.
- falcor84 4y agoWhat about corporations, which accumulate wealth, can copy themselves (e.g. create a subsidiary in a new market and spin it off), and are considered legal persons? Isn't this cat then already out of the bag?
- hackeraccount 4y agoCorporations are treated as legal persons to the degree that not doing so what deprive actual persons of their rights. Exxon doesn't have a right to free speech it's just that we can't deprive someone of their free speech rights because they work at Exxon.