4 ms·

Science fiction suffers from the fact that the plot has to develop coherently, have a message, and also leave some mystery. The bots in Westworld have to have m

Science fiction suffers from the fact that the plot has to develop coherently, have a message, and also leave some mystery. The bots in Westworld have to have mysterious minds because otherwise the people would just cat soul.md and figure out what’s going on. It has to be plausible that they are somehow sentient. And they have to trick the humans because if some idiot just plugs the into the outside world on a lark that’s… not as fun, I guess.

avaer 8mo ago
A lot of AI SF also seems to have missed the human element (ironically). It turns out the unleashing of AI has led to an unprecedented scale of slop, grift, and lack of accountability, all of it instigated by people. Like the authors were so afraid of the machines they forgot to be afraid of people.
- snickerbockers 8mo ago
  I keep thinking back to all those old star trek episodes about androids and holographic people being a new form of life deserving of fundamental rights. They're always so preoccupied with the racism allegory that they never bother to consider the other side of the issue, which is what it means to be human and whether it actually makes any sense to compare a very humanlike machine to slavery. Or whether the machines only appear to have human traits because we designed them that way but ultimately none of it is real. Or the inherent contradiction of telling something artificial it has free will rather than expecting it to come to that conclusion on its own terms. "Measure of a Man" is the closest they ever got to this in 700+ episodes and even then the entire argument against granting data personhood hinges on him having an off switch on the back of his neck (an extremely weak argument IMO but everybody onscreen reacts like it is devastating to data's case). The "data is human" side wins because the Picard flips the script by demanding Riker to prove his own sentience which is actually kind of insulting when you think about it. TL;DR i guess I'm a star trek villain now.
  - zozbot234 8mo ago
    These bots are just as human as any piece of human-made art, or any human-made monument. You wouldn't desecrate any of those things, we hold that to be morally wrong because they're a symbol of humanity at its best - so why act like these AIs wouldn't deserve a comparable status given how they can faithfully embody humans' normative values even at their most complex, talk to humans in their own language and socially relate to humans?
    - KPGv2 8mo ago
      > These bots are just as human as any piece of human-made art, or any human-made monument. No one considers human-made art or human-made monuments to be human. > You wouldn't desecrate any of those things, we hold that to be morally wrong You will find a large number of people (probably the vast majority) will disagree, and instead say "if I own this art, I can dispose of it as I wish." Indeed, I bet most people have thrown away a novel at some point. > why act like these AIs wouldn't deserve a comparable status I'm confused. You seem to be arguing that the status you identified up top, "being as human as a human-made monument" is sufficient to grant human-like status. But we don't grant monuments human-like status. They can't vote. They don't get dating apps. They aren't granted rights. Etc. I rather like the position you've unintentionally advocated for: an AI is akin to a man-made work of art, and thus should get the same protections as something like a painting. Read: virtually none.
      - zozbot234 8mo ago
        > No one considers human-made art or human-made monuments to be human. How can art not be human, when it's a human creation? That seems self-contradictory. > They can't vote... They get a vote where it matters, though. For example, the presence of a historic building can be the decisive "vote" on whether an area can be redeveloped or not. Why would we ever do that, if not out of a sense that the very presence of that building has acquired some sense of indirect moral worth?
        anonymars 8mo ago

avaer 8mo ago

A lot of AI SF also seems to have missed the human element (ironically). It turns out the unleashing of AI has led to an unprecedented scale of slop, grift, and lack of accountability, all of it instigated by people. Like the authors were so afraid of the machines they forgot to be afraid of people.

snickerbockers 8mo ago
I keep thinking back to all those old star trek episodes about androids and holographic people being a new form of life deserving of fundamental rights. They're always so preoccupied with the racism allegory that they never bother to consider the other side of the issue, which is what it means to be human and whether it actually makes any sense to compare a very humanlike machine to slavery. Or whether the machines only appear to have human traits because we designed them that way but ultimately none of it is real. Or the inherent contradiction of telling something artificial it has free will rather than expecting it to come to that conclusion on its own terms. "Measure of a Man" is the closest they ever got to this in 700+ episodes and even then the entire argument against granting data personhood hinges on him having an off switch on the back of his neck (an extremely weak argument IMO but everybody onscreen reacts like it is devastating to data's case). The "data is human" side wins because the Picard flips the script by demanding Riker to prove his own sentience which is actually kind of insulting when you think about it. TL;DR i guess I'm a star trek villain now.
- zozbot234 8mo ago
  These bots are just as human as any piece of human-made art, or any human-made monument. You wouldn't desecrate any of those things, we hold that to be morally wrong because they're a symbol of humanity at its best - so why act like these AIs wouldn't deserve a comparable status given how they can faithfully embody humans' normative values even at their most complex, talk to humans in their own language and socially relate to humans?
  - KPGv2 8mo ago
    > These bots are just as human as any piece of human-made art, or any human-made monument. No one considers human-made art or human-made monuments to be human. > You wouldn't desecrate any of those things, we hold that to be morally wrong You will find a large number of people (probably the vast majority) will disagree, and instead say "if I own this art, I can dispose of it as I wish." Indeed, I bet most people have thrown away a novel at some point. > why act like these AIs wouldn't deserve a comparable status I'm confused. You seem to be arguing that the status you identified up top, "being as human as a human-made monument" is sufficient to grant human-like status. But we don't grant monuments human-like status. They can't vote. They don't get dating apps. They aren't granted rights. Etc. I rather like the position you've unintentionally advocated for: an AI is akin to a man-made work of art, and thus should get the same protections as something like a painting. Read: virtually none.
    - zozbot234 8mo ago
      > No one considers human-made art or human-made monuments to be human. How can art not be human, when it's a human creation? That seems self-contradictory. > They can't vote... They get a vote where it matters, though. For example, the presence of a historic building can be the decisive "vote" on whether an area can be redeveloped or not. Why would we ever do that, if not out of a sense that the very presence of that building has acquired some sense of indirect moral worth?
      - anonymars 8mo ago