5 ms·

> is aggravating because it excludes humans who either directly identify as robots I honestly can't tell if this comment is a parody at this point.

makeitshine 3y ago
Satire has, in many cases, become indistinguishable from reality. In this case I'd wager its satire.
- zeruch 3y ago
  Possibly. In most cases, the satire has become so arid, and reality such a cataclysmically stupid bit of incoherent lunacy, that "satire" is now just a corpse of bones that all the most bleak and nihilistic forms of humor sit upon like a throne...or clown-ass shitposters. It's impossible to tell anymore, and that makes me weirdly happy and angry at the same time.
  - barfbagginus 3y ago
    People who think that it is impossible to tell what is satire anymore simply lack communication skills and the empathy to connect with others and find out. I could tell you I'm being 100% serious. And rather than wondering how that might be, and asking me to explain, you'd still be wondering if I was pulling your leg. That is a skills issue. I'm being 100% genuine and truthful. I really think that's some people are joined so closely with their need for computers that we should give them specific protections and rights, to give them access to the systems they need to be happy and healthy. That is the only valid robot rights issue at the time. And keep in mind the people I'm arguing with think we should give AI their own legal rights, the way corporations have. That's what I'm arguing against. It only makes sense to give rights when genuine human suffering will happen otherwise.
    - bavell 3y ago
      I don't understand why people look at me funny when I tell them I'm a squid person. Must be a skills issue.
      - barfbagginus 3y ago
        If you told me you were a squid person or cat person or a woman with a penis, or a robot, guess what. I have the skill to not be an asshole to you about it. Some people lack that skill. So it's clearly a skills issue. Specifically it's a lack of inclusivity and empathy skills.
    - zeruch 3y ago
      Satire and pedantry actually aren't that much of a flex.
      - barfbagginus 3y ago
        I'll cop to being pedantic. It still doesn't make me satirical. You can want me to be satirical. But I'm still being 100% authentic. And I'm not flexing. I just shared my stance on robot rights. The people who are flexing are people who think AIS deserve full human rights, even though AIS don't feel pain or have human needs. My argument is that people who depend on cybernetics at a deep and profound level should have access to the cybernetics they need to have quality of life. That's not a flex. That's just human rights in the context of technology.
    - golergka 3y ago
      You're in a cult.
      - barfbagginus 3y ago
        People who depend on technology for quality of life should have the right to safe and accessible technology. That's my cult. If you think people who need technology should instead be given dangerous and inaccessible technology, we have a problem. Because then you're in an opposite cult.
- smolder 3y ago
  It's hard to tell because it's satire without a stance. They're at least as confused as the apparent targets of their satire.
  - barfbagginus 3y ago
    I'm confused about nothing except why you think I don't have a stance. I clearly state my stance. Some people consider themselves robots and those people deserve access to the technologies they depend on. That's pretty simple, and not at all satirical. I think the issue is not that it's hard to tell what is satire. It's that you discount the underlying philosophical discussion and you don't understand my stance. So you think it's either satire or I'm nuts. If you want to project your confusion onto me, I can't help you understand me. Maybe ask me questions instead of assuming things. TL;DR: The idea of robot rights is an ongoing discussion in philosophy, and my take on it is simple. Some humans deserve and need robot rights, but purely artificial robots won't need rights unless and until they become conscious. That is not all that controversial within this discussion.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - smolder 3y ago
      You're right, it seems I mistook some of what you wrote as unserious. Apologies. My take on robot rights is they aren't something we need to worry much about for a long time, since robots aren't alive or anywhere close to it. LLMs aren't Data from Star Trek. If we do make a Data some day, we could take a cue from the episode where they debate his rights. (The Measure of a Man) As for humans identifying as robots, that makes about as much sense as identifying as a shoe.
      - barfbagginus 3y ago
        Agree with you about AI not needing rights because it's not alive - and probably not for a long time yet. But the theory of cybernetic systems as extensions of human beings and human minds is what I have in mind when I think about humans identifying as robots. Let me explain it a bit. I use "robot" and "cyber-physical system" interchangeably. And I use "human robot" to describe a cyber physical system consisting of a human tightly coupled with computers, such that the person A) would be significantly lessened if their cyber components were taken from them. B) wants recognition, respect, and support for their cybernetic lifestyle, needs, and differences from other humans In particular, I refer to B) as "identifying as a cyber-physical system", or "identifying as a robot" in short. Such people exist, are not well served by existing rafts of human rights, and need our support. For example, imagine someone uses GPT4 to process thoughts and emotions that they struggle to process on their own. They share /everything/ with GPT, including some very embarrassing or sensitive things, meaning that if they get hacked, criminals could get their hands on sensitive materials that they could use to extort the person. This person's extended mind includes GPT as a crucial component. They experience serious mental and social hardships without it. They manage much better with it. But as a result, they don't have the same level of mental privacy that other people enjoy in their own minds, which don't need external thought processing systems. Many of their thoughts are exposed to anyone who can monitor their AI usage, in a profound and potentially compromising way that other people don't have to worry about. This person may need additional rights to give them the same expectation of mental privacy enjoyed by ordinary people who don't depend on AI to process their deepest and innermost thoughts. It might be reasonable to establish the right for this person to have their own confidential GPT, running on their own hardware. And this establishes a conflict with intellectual property - is this person really so special that we should give them special access to the intellectual property of an AI corporation? That means weakening corporate intellectual property rights, for the benefit of this person's mental privacy rights. It's a tough ask. But I do think that such people exist. I consider myself one. I think that the effect of AI in our lives is transformative. And I feel a very powerful worry that mentally helpful AI could either be taken away from me, or be used to hurt me by people who violate my privacy. So the sooner we have access to private and confidential AI that can help us process our thoughts and lead effective and independent lives, the better. That's the main right that I would like to establish for human-ai hybrids, aka human-robots.
- barfbagginus 3y ago
  You would wager wrong. Humans who identify as cybernetic systems are real - I am one. We have real struggles, like forms of disability that require us to use assistive technologies. And we have real needs like access to effective and safe assistive technologies. These needs are in my opinion clear and self-evident. The fact that many others see it as a joke means that we have a lot of work to do here. Normalizing and recognizing humans that depend on technology - and choose to hybridize themselves with technology - is a valid goal for robot rights. And it's currently the only valid goal of robot rights. This is because human-robot hybrids are the only cybernetic systems that can suffer at this time.
sandspar 3y ago
It's fun when you get a peek into obscure subcultures' freakishly weird givens.
- barfbagginus 3y ago
  I mean it's fun to connect to humans in general... Because yeah, the ways they cope with life are often delightfully weird. Not sure if I get why you would want to insult or degrade someone over those kinds of differences. Except that maybe you're an asshole.
  - sandspar 3y ago
    You know nothing about me.
    - barfbagginus 3y ago
      I know you called me a freak for no reason, and don't have my best interest in heart. I don't need to know any more to criticize you. And I don't care if that makes you upset. You came here to attack me. That's all I know about you. And that's all I need to know.
      - sandspar 3y ago
        Your writing makes it seem like you are a vulnerable and confused person. I'm not the one to be afraid of. The people you are spending time with online are a potential danger to you.
        barfbagginus 3y ago
        My writing indicates that I'm angry with your behavior. Nothing else. You came here to call me a f***ing freak, dipshit. Walk that back if you want me to take you seriously. I'm not afraid of you. I'm angry at you for being a asshole for no reason, and demand an apology. I'm not sure where you think I'm spending my time online. I'm a business owner, working mathematician, philosopher, and accessibility activist. I'm not hanging out in some kind of n-chan cult space. I was literally just responding to a philosophy paper in public, and you jumped out to judge me as a freak. You probably didn't read the paper, or care about the subject matter. Continue trying to make sinister insinuations against me, and I'll continue correcting and tarnishing you. I have no limit of energy for dealing with jerkwads like you. Have a nice day.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
akomtu 3y ago
That comment may be telling the sad future, even if by accident. The technocracy is embracing hardcore materialism, that is: the idea that consciousness is a mechanical process somehow produced by atoms. Once that idea wraps someone's mind completely, it doesn't take long to conclude that a biological organism is a very complex robot, not different in principle from a machine powered by AI. And since AI is the greatest of all machines...
- barfbagginus 3y ago
  You didn't read me. I'm against giving human rights to AI, because they don't suffer or have human needs. I didn't claim materialism, or that everything is a robot. I didn't claim AI is the greatest of machines. What I claimed is that 1. some humans call themselves robots 2. those humans tend to depend on technology in a profound way 3. we should give those humans access to the technologies they need to have quality of life Again I'm not arguing that AI is the greatest of all machines or that all things are machines. I'm arguing that technologically dependent humans deserve access to technology and quality of life. For an example of a right that you probably agree with: all people should have the right to a good internet connection, since we all depend on it for quality of life.
- squigz 3y ago
  > the idea that consciousness is a mechanical process somehow produced by atoms. Where do you think consciousness comes from?
  - barfbagginus 3y ago
    Let's suppose consciousness comes from the gurganath. The gurganath is a metaphysical being that is not made of matter or any substance we can understand. It has a big belly. And when it slaps its belly in either anger or glee, a side effect is that whole universes full of conscious beings come into being, experience a few billions of years in subjective time, them annihilate themselves. That's consciousness as a metaphysical epiphenomenon of the gurganath. Or consider the Squigloog. The Squigloog is a "sensorial bundle" - an abstract collection of all possible sense experiences - including conscious ones. It is a static and unchanging construct existing outside of time or space. Although time does not pass for the Squigloog, it encodes all possible experiences including ones where the subject appears to experience time. That's consciousness if it were supported by the Squigloog. The first theory is akin to theism - the gurganath is basically God. The second theory is similar to Hume's Bundle Theory. Although I am mainly a materialist for pragmatic reasons, these are non-material theories of consciousness. There is no way for me to falsify either of them. And there may be no way to prove that material is the cause of consciousness. So I would say that we should be tolerant of people who have non-materialist theories of consciousness. Even if they're not very tolerant of materialists. Any one of us could be right.

makeitshine 3y ago

Satire has, in many cases, become indistinguishable from reality. In this case I'd wager its satire.

zeruch 3y ago
Possibly. In most cases, the satire has become so arid, and reality such a cataclysmically stupid bit of incoherent lunacy, that "satire" is now just a corpse of bones that all the most bleak and nihilistic forms of humor sit upon like a throne...or clown-ass shitposters. It's impossible to tell anymore, and that makes me weirdly happy and angry at the same time.
- barfbagginus 3y ago
  People who think that it is impossible to tell what is satire anymore simply lack communication skills and the empathy to connect with others and find out. I could tell you I'm being 100% serious. And rather than wondering how that might be, and asking me to explain, you'd still be wondering if I was pulling your leg. That is a skills issue. I'm being 100% genuine and truthful. I really think that's some people are joined so closely with their need for computers that we should give them specific protections and rights, to give them access to the systems they need to be happy and healthy. That is the only valid robot rights issue at the time. And keep in mind the people I'm arguing with think we should give AI their own legal rights, the way corporations have. That's what I'm arguing against. It only makes sense to give rights when genuine human suffering will happen otherwise.
  - bavell 3y ago
    I don't understand why people look at me funny when I tell them I'm a squid person. Must be a skills issue.
    - barfbagginus 3y ago
      If you told me you were a squid person or cat person or a woman with a penis, or a robot, guess what. I have the skill to not be an asshole to you about it. Some people lack that skill. So it's clearly a skills issue. Specifically it's a lack of inclusivity and empathy skills.
  - zeruch 3y ago
    Satire and pedantry actually aren't that much of a flex.
    - barfbagginus 3y ago
      I'll cop to being pedantic. It still doesn't make me satirical. You can want me to be satirical. But I'm still being 100% authentic. And I'm not flexing. I just shared my stance on robot rights. The people who are flexing are people who think AIS deserve full human rights, even though AIS don't feel pain or have human needs. My argument is that people who depend on cybernetics at a deep and profound level should have access to the cybernetics they need to have quality of life. That's not a flex. That's just human rights in the context of technology.
  - golergka 3y ago
    You're in a cult.
    - barfbagginus 3y ago
      People who depend on technology for quality of life should have the right to safe and accessible technology. That's my cult. If you think people who need technology should instead be given dangerous and inaccessible technology, we have a problem. Because then you're in an opposite cult.
smolder 3y ago
It's hard to tell because it's satire without a stance. They're at least as confused as the apparent targets of their satire.
- barfbagginus 3y ago
  I'm confused about nothing except why you think I don't have a stance. I clearly state my stance. Some people consider themselves robots and those people deserve access to the technologies they depend on. That's pretty simple, and not at all satirical. I think the issue is not that it's hard to tell what is satire. It's that you discount the underlying philosophical discussion and you don't understand my stance. So you think it's either satire or I'm nuts. If you want to project your confusion onto me, I can't help you understand me. Maybe ask me questions instead of assuming things. TL;DR: The idea of robot rights is an ongoing discussion in philosophy, and my take on it is simple. Some humans deserve and need robot rights, but purely artificial robots won't need rights unless and until they become conscious. That is not all that controversial within this discussion.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - smolder 3y ago
    You're right, it seems I mistook some of what you wrote as unserious. Apologies. My take on robot rights is they aren't something we need to worry much about for a long time, since robots aren't alive or anywhere close to it. LLMs aren't Data from Star Trek. If we do make a Data some day, we could take a cue from the episode where they debate his rights. (The Measure of a Man) As for humans identifying as robots, that makes about as much sense as identifying as a shoe.
    - barfbagginus 3y ago
      Agree with you about AI not needing rights because it's not alive - and probably not for a long time yet. But the theory of cybernetic systems as extensions of human beings and human minds is what I have in mind when I think about humans identifying as robots. Let me explain it a bit. I use "robot" and "cyber-physical system" interchangeably. And I use "human robot" to describe a cyber physical system consisting of a human tightly coupled with computers, such that the person A) would be significantly lessened if their cyber components were taken from them. B) wants recognition, respect, and support for their cybernetic lifestyle, needs, and differences from other humans In particular, I refer to B) as "identifying as a cyber-physical system", or "identifying as a robot" in short. Such people exist, are not well served by existing rafts of human rights, and need our support. For example, imagine someone uses GPT4 to process thoughts and emotions that they struggle to process on their own. They share /everything/ with GPT, including some very embarrassing or sensitive things, meaning that if they get hacked, criminals could get their hands on sensitive materials that they could use to extort the person. This person's extended mind includes GPT as a crucial component. They experience serious mental and social hardships without it. They manage much better with it. But as a result, they don't have the same level of mental privacy that other people enjoy in their own minds, which don't need external thought processing systems. Many of their thoughts are exposed to anyone who can monitor their AI usage, in a profound and potentially compromising way that other people don't have to worry about. This person may need additional rights to give them the same expectation of mental privacy enjoyed by ordinary people who don't depend on AI to process their deepest and innermost thoughts. It might be reasonable to establish the right for this person to have their own confidential GPT, running on their own hardware. And this establishes a conflict with intellectual property - is this person really so special that we should give them special access to the intellectual property of an AI corporation? That means weakening corporate intellectual property rights, for the benefit of this person's mental privacy rights. It's a tough ask. But I do think that such people exist. I consider myself one. I think that the effect of AI in our lives is transformative. And I feel a very powerful worry that mentally helpful AI could either be taken away from me, or be used to hurt me by people who violate my privacy. So the sooner we have access to private and confidential AI that can help us process our thoughts and lead effective and independent lives, the better. That's the main right that I would like to establish for human-ai hybrids, aka human-robots.
barfbagginus 3y ago
You would wager wrong. Humans who identify as cybernetic systems are real - I am one. We have real struggles, like forms of disability that require us to use assistive technologies. And we have real needs like access to effective and safe assistive technologies. These needs are in my opinion clear and self-evident. The fact that many others see it as a joke means that we have a lot of work to do here. Normalizing and recognizing humans that depend on technology - and choose to hybridize themselves with technology - is a valid goal for robot rights. And it's currently the only valid goal of robot rights. This is because human-robot hybrids are the only cybernetic systems that can suffer at this time.

sandspar 3y ago

It's fun when you get a peek into obscure subcultures' freakishly weird givens.

barfbagginus 3y ago
I mean it's fun to connect to humans in general... Because yeah, the ways they cope with life are often delightfully weird. Not sure if I get why you would want to insult or degrade someone over those kinds of differences. Except that maybe you're an asshole.
- sandspar 3y ago
  You know nothing about me.
  - barfbagginus 3y ago
    I know you called me a freak for no reason, and don't have my best interest in heart. I don't need to know any more to criticize you. And I don't care if that makes you upset. You came here to attack me. That's all I know about you. And that's all I need to know.
    - sandspar 3y ago
      Your writing makes it seem like you are a vulnerable and confused person. I'm not the one to be afraid of. The people you are spending time with online are a potential danger to you.
      - barfbagginus 3y ago
        My writing indicates that I'm angry with your behavior. Nothing else. You came here to call me a f***ing freak, dipshit. Walk that back if you want me to take you seriously. I'm not afraid of you. I'm angry at you for being a asshole for no reason, and demand an apology. I'm not sure where you think I'm spending my time online. I'm a business owner, working mathematician, philosopher, and accessibility activist. I'm not hanging out in some kind of n-chan cult space. I was literally just responding to a philosophy paper in public, and you jumped out to judge me as a freak. You probably didn't read the paper, or care about the subject matter. Continue trying to make sinister insinuations against me, and I'll continue correcting and tarnishing you. I have no limit of energy for dealing with jerkwads like you. Have a nice day.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

akomtu 3y ago

That comment may be telling the sad future, even if by accident. The technocracy is embracing hardcore materialism, that is: the idea that consciousness is a mechanical process somehow produced by atoms. Once that idea wraps someone's mind completely, it doesn't take long to conclude that a biological organism is a very complex robot, not different in principle from a machine powered by AI. And since AI is the greatest of all machines...

barfbagginus 3y ago
You didn't read me. I'm against giving human rights to AI, because they don't suffer or have human needs. I didn't claim materialism, or that everything is a robot. I didn't claim AI is the greatest of machines. What I claimed is that 1. some humans call themselves robots 2. those humans tend to depend on technology in a profound way 3. we should give those humans access to the technologies they need to have quality of life Again I'm not arguing that AI is the greatest of all machines or that all things are machines. I'm arguing that technologically dependent humans deserve access to technology and quality of life. For an example of a right that you probably agree with: all people should have the right to a good internet connection, since we all depend on it for quality of life.
squigz 3y ago
> the idea that consciousness is a mechanical process somehow produced by atoms. Where do you think consciousness comes from?
- barfbagginus 3y ago
  Let's suppose consciousness comes from the gurganath. The gurganath is a metaphysical being that is not made of matter or any substance we can understand. It has a big belly. And when it slaps its belly in either anger or glee, a side effect is that whole universes full of conscious beings come into being, experience a few billions of years in subjective time, them annihilate themselves. That's consciousness as a metaphysical epiphenomenon of the gurganath. Or consider the Squigloog. The Squigloog is a "sensorial bundle" - an abstract collection of all possible sense experiences - including conscious ones. It is a static and unchanging construct existing outside of time or space. Although time does not pass for the Squigloog, it encodes all possible experiences including ones where the subject appears to experience time. That's consciousness if it were supported by the Squigloog. The first theory is akin to theism - the gurganath is basically God. The second theory is similar to Hume's Bundle Theory. Although I am mainly a materialist for pragmatic reasons, these are non-material theories of consciousness. There is no way for me to falsify either of them. And there may be no way to prove that material is the cause of consciousness. So I would say that we should be tolerant of people who have non-materialist theories of consciousness. Even if they're not very tolerant of materialists. Any one of us could be right.