5 ms·
I 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 an
by unlikelymordant 4y ago
I 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.