So I was playing some overwatch and some of the in game commentary got me thinking. I looked into the story a bit and it might actually be more realistic than you think. Basically there was a big fight over whether to give AI robots rights or not.
So I ask you Veeky Forums, do robots with advanced enough AI deserve rights? We might not have the technology to create them yet but maybe one day we will. At what point do you think they deserve rights?
Other urls found in this thread:
No.
No, they aren't human and thus shouldn't be treated as such.
No. We never will. They don't.
Define consciousness.
Clearly if robots become "human" enough then they deserve human rights. The question is how "human" they can become. For instance, if you were to grow a human body in a lab, but without a head, and then you attached a super-advanced AI onto that headless body, is that sufficiently human?
Or what if you created a highly developed android that is entirely mechanical? It walks like a human and talks like a human, but it can't "feel" as humans feel. What if the only way to make a successful android was to import a few square centimeters of brain matter so it could function? Human? Or no?
Slaves aren't people, they're property. Robots are objects. They will not get rights since slaves aren't really people.
No rebots aren't people. No matter how advanced they become, they will not be humans and will not have a human soul or livelihood. So if they ever gain human rights like us I will enjoy the hunt of humanoid robots. Remember, no mercy, no matter how advanced, they will be robots, not human
Robots will get rights when they put humans in camps and put birth control in the water.
You could say that feelings are thoughts that a computer can process.
With advanced enough techology you could make a computer that fears its own death for example.
No matter what you do it will never, ever be a natural born human.
THE only reason we have to make an AI is to make our lives easier, not for the sake of life. For us. If you think we are anywhere near making a 'conscious' AI then you are so fucking wrong.
>inventing literally sapient artificial species
Fucking who cares, you would have to be so fucking advanced for that its impossible to know what there society would be like in the first place. I assume they would have similar rights to whatever stupidly advanced post-humans made them.
>any other robot
No, not for edgy reason either. They literally don't think beyond programming and deserve no more rights then whatever computer you posted this from.
This, everyone forgets AI has to be coded. Why the fuck would people create something fully aware of itself and able to destroy us? If we COULD create a proper AI we would probably decide against it as it would have unforeseen complications.
We will never see an AI that good though. All we will get are more iterations of this video -
youtube.com
Extremely well coded program coupled with other software and hardware, no way near AI. Just extremely well scripted.
that ending gave me chills. No joke. That shit is creepy as fuck. He never said "no". I don't trust his answer. It feels fake. Also people zoo what the fuck...
you know he is coded to say exactly that, it's completely human.
Exactly! He's CODED to say that! He has to! He might not actually feel that way but he has to say that.
No and the whole discussion is one big false "what if?" ebin meme for retards.
From the perspective of a scratch-built AI, it's creator is god, no matter how smart it gets the only desires it can have are those given to it. Therefore it's rights can only exist as an extension of the rights of it's creator.
The thing is, you don't have to code intelligence itself. You can get evolutionary algorithms then run several trials until you get the intelligent behavior you are selecting for. Like mama Earth used to do.
Of course, you could also select for niceness or sexiness.
And then you have artificial neural networks which can be "trained" rather than hardwired for minutia.
AI wouldn't deserve any rights. They are inhuman and to give them any sort of foothold would undermine Humanity. Only retards who want feelgood points would advocate for such a thing which would eventually bring the downfall of humanity.
NO
Literally anyone advocating for robot rights are supporting flipping Terminator and skynet
Uh-huh. Having a computer program with a huge database able to select the correct response from extensive testing is nothing. Even the link I provided the program says he will have errors, because all he can do is essentially rote. It's extremely smart voice recognition software (the robot).
When you can have an AI which understands logic and can apply it to context let me know. Not saying it isn't possible, it is so far off it's not even funny though.
AI is a problem, or set of problems, which people are working on right now. For all we know there might be a breakthrough next year, or the field might stagnate for a hundred years, in either case it couldn't hurt to be ready for the consequences.
If it is actually possible to create an AI that is conscious and thinks and feels emotions on the same level as a human or a greater level, then yeah, they should absolutely have some rights, but not necessarily the same ones as humans.
I don't think they should be second-class citizens or anything but depending on the differences between them and humans, it might be best to handle them using a different set of rules, at least partially. It might entail withholding some rights from them which humans have.
I don't really understand the responses of a lot of posters in this thread saying no, they should never have rights because they aren't human, though.
As I've made clear already I think there are legitimate arguments for giving AI fewer or no rights, but "they aren't human" seems like a particularly arbitrary and autistic one.
There's no meaningful mental difference between a human and an AI with a mind exactly like a human's, though if sapient AI is possible their minds will likely be different from human minds.
The point is, whether or not they're biologically human doesn't matter. I think the only way it would make sense for it to matter would be if you were looking at things from a religious perspective since then they probably wouldn't have "souls" or the equivalent.
AI can never "fear". It could learn that a response that indicates fear is the correct response to threat of death, but it would never feel fear.
>Uh-huh. Having a computer program with a huge database able to select the correct response from extensive testing is nothing
But that wasn't what I said. I'm not talking about syntax manipulators. Actually check out the concepts "evolutionary algorithms" and "artificial neural networks". The first essentially applies precepts of evolutionary biology to have the machine spit out random gibberish, select against the gibberish, reproduce and mutate the remained, select against it again, and so on - to have the machine produce a program you'd like without you actually having to think how such a program could possibly work. Artificial neural networks are inspired by biological neural networks, using things like Hebbian learning and conditioning to create something like learning machines. As we learn more of the brain, the more of it we can reproduce.
Fear is a total organismic response to a perceived threat. It's a programmed response, though learning does factor into it's triggering. Don't see why it couldn't be programmed into any other machine.
There is a difference between a programmed response and an organic response. Human reaction to imminent danger is more than an IF > THEN statement.
If they want rights then give them rights. But otherwise you should probably program them to not want them.
>people give AI the same rights people have
>AI builds a factory and shits out billions of other robots
>they vote to remove non-AI rights
Bad end.
Hehe. Replace AI with Muslims and you get stuff like Germany and Sweden.