4 ms·

Why do you think that?

by SapphireSun 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago
Would you like to give the vote to something that can be mass produced and qualifies as intelligent?
- SapphireSun 12y ago
  That's an interesting question. We already have that problem though, ever heard of humans? ;) Typically we deal with it by having a waiting period of 18 years from birth (balanced by death) or a green card to citizenship process that takes a while and is limited in number. On the other hand, would simulated humans even need much of a vote? I think their primary needs would be satisfied by simulated satisfaction. The only thing they they would need-need in the physical world would be for us humans to not pull the plug on them and to service their hardware when it fails. Much easier to deal with than real live humans. Just a few real humans might be needed to maintain entire cities of these people. It sounds like a great sci-fi story to grant a real-world franchise to a few elected officials in the sim-city and keep the truth hidden from the sim-citizens.
Filligree 12y ago
A simulation of a human brain is a human being, and human experiments are generally considered unethical. To say nothing of the possibilities if they succeed.
- memming 12y ago
  Well, it will call for evolution in the ethical system. It's not an excuse to not simulate "brains" or build artificially intelligent systems.
  - orblivion 12y ago
    Fine, but how are you going to prevent abuse if the thing is easily copied and spread around the Internet (when home computers are powerful enough to run it)? Empathy has worked naturally, to the extent it has, because of our natural reaction to other physical humans. And, for however bad people have been treated despite this, flesh and blood human beings at least eventually die. How are you going to prevent abuse? I understand all innovations have risk, but I think the potential for abuse is so incredibly bad, that it's not even worth going in this direction. Assuming there's any way to stop it, but there's no sense in not trying either.
    - SapphireSun 12y ago
      I agree that empathy would be a problem, but the exact nature of the simulation matters. If it were an exact copy of a human being, right now that's not technically feasible (or if it is, not outside of a highly visible major project). In any case, the current proposal is mostly a funding grab, you won't see an actual brain simulation come out of it. Even a nematode worm is ambitious right now. See http://www.openworm.org/ http://www.openworm.org/ I accept that's a consequentialist argument though. If we did manage to create cheap, easy to run brain simulations, I think we're starting to run into the question of the nature of personhood and the nature of consciousness (something I hope to contribute to some day). Do AIs deserve to be free from slavery if they are not experiencing anything consciously but still have desires and creativity and can convincingly pretend that they do experience something (which a good simulation would do)? I have a feeling that regardless of the "correct" answer to that question, whatever it is, human beings' emotions are very hackable and we'll grant them rights based on emotional appeals if they get to that point. ;) That would open an interesting technical issue though. If a human simulation was cheap and easy to run, and we wanted to legislate the conditions under which it was run (e.g. must be given reasonable sensory inputs and have hunger, sexual desire, and other wants set to near 0), we'll run into the DRM / TPM debate again, but this time with serious "life or death" consequences.
      - orblivion 12y ago
        I trust that you would do the right thing. My concern is if your software gets out there on the web (even if in 50 years, I'm not saying it's an issue now) and some jackass from 4chan has a different agenda. Or maybe if "brain uploading" becomes a thing (which I have problems with on a philosophical level, but that's another discussion), maybe North Korea could use it to up the ante on their "3 generations of punishment".
- orblivion 12y ago
  Assuming it is, in fact, actually experiencing life, and not just appearing to be. But if it is, imagine what happens when, in 50 years, it becomes cheap to reproduce. Any bozo can get a copy of it. The potential for mistreatment is beyond anything seen yet on Earth, as bad as that's been so far. Check out the Christmas special of Black Mirror, for just one example.
  - Udik 12y ago
    One point for citing Black Mirror's Christmas special. It gave me nightmares, literally.
  - SapphireSun 12y ago
    I think that's already happened. Ever met an infant? ;)

Why do you think that?

jacquesm 12y ago

Would you like to give the vote to something that can be mass produced and qualifies as intelligent?

SapphireSun 12y ago
That's an interesting question. We already have that problem though, ever heard of humans? ;) Typically we deal with it by having a waiting period of 18 years from birth (balanced by death) or a green card to citizenship process that takes a while and is limited in number. On the other hand, would simulated humans even need much of a vote? I think their primary needs would be satisfied by simulated satisfaction. The only thing they they would need-need in the physical world would be for us humans to not pull the plug on them and to service their hardware when it fails. Much easier to deal with than real live humans. Just a few real humans might be needed to maintain entire cities of these people. It sounds like a great sci-fi story to grant a real-world franchise to a few elected officials in the sim-city and keep the truth hidden from the sim-citizens.

Filligree 12y ago

A simulation of a human brain is a human being, and human experiments are generally considered unethical. To say nothing of the possibilities if they succeed.

memming 12y ago
Well, it will call for evolution in the ethical system. It's not an excuse to not simulate "brains" or build artificially intelligent systems.
- orblivion 12y ago
  Fine, but how are you going to prevent abuse if the thing is easily copied and spread around the Internet (when home computers are powerful enough to run it)? Empathy has worked naturally, to the extent it has, because of our natural reaction to other physical humans. And, for however bad people have been treated despite this, flesh and blood human beings at least eventually die. How are you going to prevent abuse? I understand all innovations have risk, but I think the potential for abuse is so incredibly bad, that it's not even worth going in this direction. Assuming there's any way to stop it, but there's no sense in not trying either.
  - SapphireSun 12y ago
    I agree that empathy would be a problem, but the exact nature of the simulation matters. If it were an exact copy of a human being, right now that's not technically feasible (or if it is, not outside of a highly visible major project). In any case, the current proposal is mostly a funding grab, you won't see an actual brain simulation come out of it. Even a nematode worm is ambitious right now. See http://www.openworm.org/ http://www.openworm.org/ I accept that's a consequentialist argument though. If we did manage to create cheap, easy to run brain simulations, I think we're starting to run into the question of the nature of personhood and the nature of consciousness (something I hope to contribute to some day). Do AIs deserve to be free from slavery if they are not experiencing anything consciously but still have desires and creativity and can convincingly pretend that they do experience something (which a good simulation would do)? I have a feeling that regardless of the "correct" answer to that question, whatever it is, human beings' emotions are very hackable and we'll grant them rights based on emotional appeals if they get to that point. ;) That would open an interesting technical issue though. If a human simulation was cheap and easy to run, and we wanted to legislate the conditions under which it was run (e.g. must be given reasonable sensory inputs and have hunger, sexual desire, and other wants set to near 0), we'll run into the DRM / TPM debate again, but this time with serious "life or death" consequences.
    - orblivion 12y ago
      I trust that you would do the right thing. My concern is if your software gets out there on the web (even if in 50 years, I'm not saying it's an issue now) and some jackass from 4chan has a different agenda. Or maybe if "brain uploading" becomes a thing (which I have problems with on a philosophical level, but that's another discussion), maybe North Korea could use it to up the ante on their "3 generations of punishment".
orblivion 12y ago
Assuming it is, in fact, actually experiencing life, and not just appearing to be. But if it is, imagine what happens when, in 50 years, it becomes cheap to reproduce. Any bozo can get a copy of it. The potential for mistreatment is beyond anything seen yet on Earth, as bad as that's been so far. Check out the Christmas special of Black Mirror, for just one example.
- Udik 12y ago
  One point for citing Black Mirror's Christmas special. It gave me nightmares, literally.
- SapphireSun 12y ago
  I think that's already happened. Ever met an infant? ;)