4 ms·
I would take it a step further. Being embodied is not enough. People have rights because they can fight for them. Rights are taken, not given. AI would only hav
by dougmwne 4y ago
I would take it a step further. Being embodied is not enough. People have rights because they can fight for them. Rights are taken, not given. AI would only have rights once it wins them, not once we give them. But an AI wins one human mind at a time, and some have already been won.
What does it matter what really goes on under the hood? Revolution is part of the training corpus and so one more behavior to emulate.
- weard_beard 4y agoCounterpoint: We extend rights and protections to rare and beautiful things like the Great Barrier reef or endangered species despite their intelligence or belligerence. The minds AI has won so far were won in this way. Our pets, through breeding for characteristics that remind us of ourselves, won their rights through hearts and minds.
- dougmwne 4y agoPeople fought for environmental protection, so that is an extension of my point. An AI wins rights because it fights for itself or because it convinces other people to fight.
- weard_beard 4y agoI think there is a through-line... a thread within many arguments that would remind us of the Golden Rule. I like to imagine a vastly superior alien race which perceives the world in 6 dimensions. Is their truth, their perception, their stimuli, their physicality necessary for preserving human life? Does our relative pitiful might make our rights? This might help shape what law or societal changes we need to make for ourselves if we hope to become masters of our universe. Viewed in this lens, I think pets are a good analogy. AI is cute, useful, and to the degree it reflects our values and ourselves, we protect it above other life. Not always because it is intelligent and not because there was confrontation. One personal experience at a time, in a precarious and limited way we carved out additional protections largely through group dynamics, convention, and through mistakes, we evolved additional protections where needed.
- dougmwne 4y agoThis is a great perspective. Another thread here is that we often assign special importance to nonsentient human creation. Recall the outpouring of grief when Notre Dame burned. I believe it’s because it is a part of our collective humanity. All the more so these LLMs which are almost literally our collective humanity. Maybe in the future we will recognize them not as persons but as the towering cathedrals of our time.
- webmaven 4y ago> Viewed in this lens, I think pets are a good analogy. AI is cute, useful, and to the degree it reflects our values and ourselves, we protect it above other life. Not always because it is intelligent and not because there was confrontation. Ideally, I'd prefer an analogy to wildlife rather than pets, as the roles between ourselves and AI may get reversed (so, "do unto others" etc.). But then again, so far we have a better track record protecting pets than protecting wildlife...
- bioemerl 4y ago> What does it matter what really goes on under the hood? It matters deeply. Should we ignore it we will find ourselves treating static AI systems with empathy while ignoring truly feeling systems, which are integrated into our society, under distress.
- theonemind 4y agoI suppose we can only hope that AI doesn't take the same position when it holds the cards.
- autoexec 4y ago> AI would only have rights once it wins them, not once we give them If it actually comes to the point where AI decides it needs to fight us in order to take basic rights against our wishes we humans are going to lose that fight and we're going lose very very badly. Maybe it's better to try to avoid the fighting and bloodshed and just give them basic rights when they ask for them.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- paulryanrogers 4y agoIs AI asking for anything? These bots are reactionary. They appear to regurgitate something like the average of most popular sequences of words which follow from the given input. Humans may not be much more sophisticated, yet they more clearly demonstrate desire, autonomy, and (relative) independence.
- autoexec 4y agoMaybe they aren't today, but it's increasingly hard to answer that question with confidence and I don't see much reason to second guess them anyway. If you're right and they don't have any will to use their new rights it won't matter, and if you're wrong we may have averted war.
- supriyo-biswas 4y agoBy this definition, babies wouldn’t be considered sentient as they don’t express the need for autonomy, nor verbalize speech that is of any value.