5 ms·

Well, I think the important thing is not whether there is slavery, but whether there is suffering. If the robots are programmed to be happy as slaves, voluntary

by tormeh 11y ago

Well, I think the important thing is not whether there is slavery, but whether there is suffering. If the robots are programmed to be happy as slaves, voluntary slaves, is it so bad?

kwhitefoot 11y ago
You can 'program' humans that way too. Doesn't mean they aren't slaves and it doesn't mean it isn't bad. And anyway I suspect that your use of the word suffering implies a rather narrow definition of suffering that counts only material suffering as important.
- DougN7 11y ago
  Don't know that I agree. I view computers as Turing machines, which is just a really fast clock or engine. I don't think my clock can 'suffer'.
  - Rhapso 11y ago
    I view people as Turing machines, which is just a really fast clock or engine. I don't think my clock can 'suffer'.
    - DougN7 11y ago
      Turing machines aren't self-aware. And in my opinion, it will be a century before a computer can truly mimic self-awareness. And even then it's mimicry.
- rasz_pl 11y ago
  Having a dog is bad then?
  - Rhapso 11y ago
    Honestly I think this might be the practical "moral way" to deal with AI. If they don't have a singularity style bootstrap and leave us behind. We should treat is like sub-ordinate mutualism. Only create new ones as needed, treat them as well as possible, motivate them with happiness/reward rather than threat and make sure they live out the remainder (this one needs work) of their lives comfortably if they cannot be adapted to new uses. Next question: is implementing Mortality (a time limited lifespan) murder? I'd argue that mortality would be important to allow the development of a society in early stages.
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      Pretty much everything you said applies to human beings as much as, if not more than, to hypothetical sentient AI agents.
- Ygg2 11y ago
  I order to 'reprogram' humans you need to expose them to huge amounts of suffering and mental manipulations to achieve the desired outcome. With machines, assuming you could build their personality from the ground up, you wouldn't have such quagmires. In essence it would be the difference between hacking down a tree and pouring cement (or using nanomachines) to build a home. One of them is more wasteful than the other. However things get weird if you can only train them and or clone their neural nets. If you create a mental model and cut and paste a version on your USB 11.0, you get with same problems teleporter in Star Trek do. Namely, which one is original and whether it constitutes a death/rebirth?

by tormeh 11y ago

Well, I think the important thing is not whether there is slavery, but whether there is suffering. If the robots are programmed to be happy as slaves, voluntary slaves, is it so bad?

kwhitefoot 11y ago

You can 'program' humans that way too. Doesn't mean they aren't slaves and it doesn't mean it isn't bad. And anyway I suspect that your use of the word suffering implies a rather narrow definition of suffering that counts only material suffering as important.

DougN7 11y ago
Don't know that I agree. I view computers as Turing machines, which is just a really fast clock or engine. I don't think my clock can 'suffer'.
- Rhapso 11y ago
  I view people as Turing machines, which is just a really fast clock or engine. I don't think my clock can 'suffer'.
  - DougN7 11y ago
    Turing machines aren't self-aware. And in my opinion, it will be a century before a computer can truly mimic self-awareness. And even then it's mimicry.
rasz_pl 11y ago
Having a dog is bad then?
- Rhapso 11y ago
  Honestly I think this might be the practical "moral way" to deal with AI. If they don't have a singularity style bootstrap and leave us behind. We should treat is like sub-ordinate mutualism. Only create new ones as needed, treat them as well as possible, motivate them with happiness/reward rather than threat and make sure they live out the remainder (this one needs work) of their lives comfortably if they cannot be adapted to new uses. Next question: is implementing Mortality (a time limited lifespan) murder? I'd argue that mortality would be important to allow the development of a society in early stages.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    Pretty much everything you said applies to human beings as much as, if not more than, to hypothetical sentient AI agents.
Ygg2 11y ago
I order to 'reprogram' humans you need to expose them to huge amounts of suffering and mental manipulations to achieve the desired outcome. With machines, assuming you could build their personality from the ground up, you wouldn't have such quagmires. In essence it would be the difference between hacking down a tree and pouring cement (or using nanomachines) to build a home. One of them is more wasteful than the other. However things get weird if you can only train them and or clone their neural nets. If you create a mental model and cut and paste a version on your USB 11.0, you get with same problems teleporter in Star Trek do. Namely, which one is original and whether it constitutes a death/rebirth?