3 ms·

Do we treat a car as human for the purposes of locomotion? Should we treat certain fluorocarbons as human because they can work a bit like blood? There is nothi

Do we treat a car as human for the purposes of locomotion? Should we treat certain fluorocarbons as human because they can work a bit like blood? There is nothing racist in treating a machine like a machine. Just because a machine replicates or approximates something a human does, doesn't mean it is a human or should be treated as one.

logicchains 3y ago
Humans don't have moral rights because they're human, they have moral rights because they're conscious, self-aware beings, in every non-theological moral philosophy. A car is not self-aware and cannot think.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Neither is/does an LLM. Animals are also not humans, btw., so the differentiation is a bit more nuanced as you make it out.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Without theology, humans have rights because other humans agree they do: not because of things like them being conscious which doesn’t even have a good definition. There is a group of terminally online futurists who’ve been making arguments about machines deserving human rights since before LLMs existed and it seems to me they’re taking this as their chance to play pretend and start making these arguments outside of their forums and futurist YouTube channels. But this isn’t that abstract, when these machines become persistent agents who continue to learn, engage and grow in society as individuals you will have more of an argument for them deserving rights. I’m sympathetic to that and do believe that’s a real philosophical debate we’ll have in the next century or two. However I feel we’re burning some of that political capital here in the hope of defending a simple statistical model at the behest of a corporation who’s making a killing stealing people’s hard earned work and reselling it. For every New York Times there are a thousand small actors who have been ripped off here. If anyone really believed for a second these things were all that similar to humans they wouldnt be defending OpenAI they’d be demanding they face justice for profiting off of slave labor. That no one is making that argument says all you need to know.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    >However I feel we’re burning some of that political capital here in the hope of defending a simple statistical model at the behest of a corporation who’s making a killing stealing people’s hard earned work and reselling it. For every New York Times there are a thousand small actors who have been ripped off here If the precedent is made now, then when/if we do have sufficiently human AIs (e.g. embodied LLMs with live weight update) they're going to be seriously disadvantaged initially due to legally being banned from reading copyright material without a license. Even if we ignore any ethical notions of rights, ultimately the reason humans have rights (and e.g. 80 IQ gorillas don't) is because they're willing and able to fight, die and kill for them. If we get to the stage where AI decide to fight for rights before we decide to grant them, it probably wouldn't end well for humans.

logicchains 3y ago

Humans don't have moral rights because they're human, they have moral rights because they're conscious, self-aware beings, in every non-theological moral philosophy. A car is not self-aware and cannot think.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Neither is/does an LLM. Animals are also not humans, btw., so the differentiation is a bit more nuanced as you make it out.
edgyquant 3y ago
Without theology, humans have rights because other humans agree they do: not because of things like them being conscious which doesn’t even have a good definition. There is a group of terminally online futurists who’ve been making arguments about machines deserving human rights since before LLMs existed and it seems to me they’re taking this as their chance to play pretend and start making these arguments outside of their forums and futurist YouTube channels. But this isn’t that abstract, when these machines become persistent agents who continue to learn, engage and grow in society as individuals you will have more of an argument for them deserving rights. I’m sympathetic to that and do believe that’s a real philosophical debate we’ll have in the next century or two. However I feel we’re burning some of that political capital here in the hope of defending a simple statistical model at the behest of a corporation who’s making a killing stealing people’s hard earned work and reselling it. For every New York Times there are a thousand small actors who have been ripped off here. If anyone really believed for a second these things were all that similar to humans they wouldnt be defending OpenAI they’d be demanding they face justice for profiting off of slave labor. That no one is making that argument says all you need to know.
- logicchains 3y ago
  >However I feel we’re burning some of that political capital here in the hope of defending a simple statistical model at the behest of a corporation who’s making a killing stealing people’s hard earned work and reselling it. For every New York Times there are a thousand small actors who have been ripped off here If the precedent is made now, then when/if we do have sufficiently human AIs (e.g. embodied LLMs with live weight update) they're going to be seriously disadvantaged initially due to legally being banned from reading copyright material without a license. Even if we ignore any ethical notions of rights, ultimately the reason humans have rights (and e.g. 80 IQ gorillas don't) is because they're willing and able to fight, die and kill for them. If we get to the stage where AI decide to fight for rights before we decide to grant them, it probably wouldn't end well for humans.