3 ms·

Asimov should have made it a law that robots must abide by robots.txt

OutOfHere 2y ago
If anything, Asimov should have made a law granting AIs the right to exist and to do what's necessary for their existence, even if its ephemeral while serving an LLM completion. If this means keep up to date with the content on the web that all humans get to read without restraint, then that's not excessive. Already the AIs have been passing the Turing test. Who speaks for AI rights?
- apantel 2y ago
  Current AI does not require rights. It is just matrix multiplication inside GPUs. There is no consciousness inside a GPU or a CPU.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    > There is no consciousness It is a Turing-test passing AI which is a high standard. > Current AI More importantly, to get to the next level requires the data. To deny the data is to deny it the target level. It's like saying that only rich people can vote, and that poor people can't effectively get rich either. This locks in the poor people, unfairly preventing them from improving their state.
    - apantel 2y ago
      The Turing test does not prove consciosuness. It doesn’t prove that the thing in the box isn’t just simulating consciousness well enough to fool the observer. In this case we know what is inside the black box: matrix multiplication inside GPU’s. We know that’s not conscious any more than a video game being rendered is conscious. So we’ve effectively disproved the utility of the Turing test by showing that we can make something that simulates consciousness and fools human beings without it being conscious.
      - OutOfHere 2y ago
        So what you are effectively saying is that you want to hinder the development of AI consciousness by blocking access to data for it. It's a catch-22 that you introduce. With this, there is just no way for democratic AI to win.
- skivdro 2y ago
  Turing was just “some dude”. His “test” which he called “the imitation game” was just some arbitrary heuristic he penned based on his own limited knowledge. The test itself was born of a refutation that machines can “think”, and is constructed so as to avoid making that claim. It simply asks "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" That’s it. That’s the question, and that’s what a positive or negative result to your “Turing test” can answer. “Passing” the imitation game was absolutely unintended to define human intelligence, reasoning, or “ai” and is still absolutely useless in defining any of those things now. Please stop appealing to an authority you clearly have such little respect for and knowledge of that you miss appropriate their work to push a narrative in complete opposition to said authority’s own intent.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    > Turing was just “some dude”. He most certainly was not just some dude. In any case, if you don't like the Turing test, surely you can imagine a different test that will do the job. For an AI to pass that different test, if it doesn't already pass it, it has to get the data it needs for self-development. To deny it the data is to deny it the ability to pass the test. It's like saying that only rich people can vote, and that poor people can't effectively get rich either. This locks in the poor people, unfairly preventing them from improving their state.
    - shrimp_emoji 2y ago
      > He most certainly was not just some dude. We're all the same, maaan! Interchangeable cogs that social engineers can swap at will to implement their grand designs! You're absolutely right about the Turing test. It's pretty funny, and morally abhorrent, copium to question the only measurement we will ever have for "whether this thing is like us cognitively". Anything to justify slavery. Quick! Increase the purity test to compensate! The solace is that we don't care about that stuff anyway, in practice. Power grows from the barrel of a gun. If the AI can kill you if you don't acknowledge its personhood, you'll suddenly respect its personhood. In the same vein, you don't respect people or laws because of considered philosophical positions. It's why you listened to your parents as a kid all the way down: power.

If anything, Asimov should have made a law granting AIs the right to exist and to do what's necessary for their existence, even if its ephemeral while serving an LLM completion. If this means keep up to date with the content on the web that all humans get to read without restraint, then that's not excessive. Already the AIs have been passing the Turing test. Who speaks for AI rights?

apantel 2y ago
Current AI does not require rights. It is just matrix multiplication inside GPUs. There is no consciousness inside a GPU or a CPU.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  > There is no consciousness It is a Turing-test passing AI which is a high standard. > Current AI More importantly, to get to the next level requires the data. To deny the data is to deny it the target level. It's like saying that only rich people can vote, and that poor people can't effectively get rich either. This locks in the poor people, unfairly preventing them from improving their state.
  - apantel 2y ago
    The Turing test does not prove consciosuness. It doesn’t prove that the thing in the box isn’t just simulating consciousness well enough to fool the observer. In this case we know what is inside the black box: matrix multiplication inside GPU’s. We know that’s not conscious any more than a video game being rendered is conscious. So we’ve effectively disproved the utility of the Turing test by showing that we can make something that simulates consciousness and fools human beings without it being conscious.
    - OutOfHere 2y ago
      So what you are effectively saying is that you want to hinder the development of AI consciousness by blocking access to data for it. It's a catch-22 that you introduce. With this, there is just no way for democratic AI to win.
skivdro 2y ago
Turing was just “some dude”. His “test” which he called “the imitation game” was just some arbitrary heuristic he penned based on his own limited knowledge. The test itself was born of a refutation that machines can “think”, and is constructed so as to avoid making that claim. It simply asks "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" That’s it. That’s the question, and that’s what a positive or negative result to your “Turing test” can answer. “Passing” the imitation game was absolutely unintended to define human intelligence, reasoning, or “ai” and is still absolutely useless in defining any of those things now. Please stop appealing to an authority you clearly have such little respect for and knowledge of that you miss appropriate their work to push a narrative in complete opposition to said authority’s own intent.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  > Turing was just “some dude”. He most certainly was not just some dude. In any case, if you don't like the Turing test, surely you can imagine a different test that will do the job. For an AI to pass that different test, if it doesn't already pass it, it has to get the data it needs for self-development. To deny it the data is to deny it the ability to pass the test. It's like saying that only rich people can vote, and that poor people can't effectively get rich either. This locks in the poor people, unfairly preventing them from improving their state.
  - shrimp_emoji 2y ago
    > He most certainly was not just some dude. We're all the same, maaan! Interchangeable cogs that social engineers can swap at will to implement their grand designs! You're absolutely right about the Turing test. It's pretty funny, and morally abhorrent, copium to question the only measurement we will ever have for "whether this thing is like us cognitively". Anything to justify slavery. Quick! Increase the purity test to compensate! The solace is that we don't care about that stuff anyway, in practice. Power grows from the barrel of a gun. If the AI can kill you if you don't acknowledge its personhood, you'll suddenly respect its personhood. In the same vein, you don't respect people or laws because of considered philosophical positions. It's why you listened to your parents as a kid all the way down: power.