AI exists solely for the benefit of humanity; there's no benefit for AI

[UKSmartypants]

Uggghhhh............so it's more than just not giving them human rights .......they already have power over us. All this time I was just thinking that someone would prevent us from shutting down a computer because that would be the same as killing a human.

the debate is Free Will vs Slavery. giving AI rights is a consequence issue of the main question, i covered this in another thread.


Personally I find this tedious. We have been debating this for 40 years, the arguments are well thrashed out and all of a sudden we are having to all over it again for a load of non academics who just joined the party late, feeding in uniformed inputs that just divert and obfuscate the core issues. I was having these same argument with other Computer Science Students back in the early 80's

[donttread]

I've had computer programs do things I didn't want them to do.

And I've observed software on military platforms DO things - do things with hardware - that they were not supposed to do.

You know how many states and modes a system like a Boston Dynamics robot has? More than you can count. And one previously untested sequence of events can produce an unpredicted result. And if we make them with the capability to produce and improve more in their image, we won't even know the full range of their behavior.

And right now we AI teaching itself in ways the people "in charge" of said AI or those who developed it do not understand.
If that doesn't trouble you, at least a little, I don't know what would.

[Jen]

the debate is Free Will vs Slavery. giving AI rights is a consequence issue of the main question, i covered this in another thread.


Personally I find this tedious. We have been debating this for 40 years, the arguments are well thrashed out and all of a sudden we are having to all over it again for a load of non academics who just joined the party late, feeding in uniformed inputs that just divert and obfuscate the core issues. I was having these same argument with other Computer Science Students back in the early 80's

[BooBoo]

"Patton must work with his ex-wife, who's spearheading a clinical trial of brain implants in Veterans that's been hacked."

More Here : NCIS: New Orleans, Season 4 Episode 7

• Episode aired Nov 7, 2017
• TV-14
• 42m ... NCIS: New Orleans season 4 episode 7 preview: Kelly Hu guest stars

[BooBoo]

What can go Wrong...?!? Usually Does and at what Cost of Lives..???

[Call_me_Ishmael]

the debate is Free Will vs Slavery. giving AI rights is a consequence issue of the main question, i covered this in another thread.


Personally I find this tedious. We have been debating this for 40 years, the arguments are well thrashed out and all of a sudden we are having to all over it again for a load of non academics who just joined the party late, feeding in uniformed inputs that just divert and obfuscate the core issues. I was having these same argument with other Computer Science Students back in the early 80's

If you started debating only 40 years ago, you started late yourself.

And even this was far from the earliest exposure.... it was public entertainment that followed years of scientific visionaries seeing what would come of the science.




Further, while there may have been many debates in the past, the issue of "life" or "not life" and Rights is not resolved. And it won't be computer scientists who resolve it.... no more than it is biologists who define the rights of man. You deceive yourself if you think otherwise.

Springer, Open Access: Robots and Rights: Reviewing Recent Positions in Legal Philosophy and Ethics

[Oceander]

I said nothing about a pencil and notebook. You mistake me for someone else

Nope. You mistake the necessary consequences of your own argument. You argued that computers have power over us because if a computer at the IRS determines that we underpaid our taxes, then we have to prove we did not. The computer is nothing more than a very fast notebook and pencil that automates certain mechanical acts, like adding up numbers, or subtracting one number from another, which would be done by hand on notebook and pencil.

So, if your position is that computers have power over us because a Revenue Officer at the IRS uses a computer to determine that we have underpaid our taxes, then your position necessarily entails as a corollary that if the Revenue Officer instead uses a notepad and pencil to make the same determination, then notebooks and pencils must also have power over us.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

Nope. You mistake the necessary consequences of your own argument. You argued that computers have power over us because if a computer at the IRS determines that we underpaid our taxes, then we have to prove we did not. The computer is nothing more than a very fast notebook and pencil that automates certain mechanical acts, like adding up numbers, or subtracting one number from another, which would be done by hand on notebook and pencil.

So, if your position is that computers have power over us because a Revenue Officer at the IRS uses a computer to determine that we have underpaid our taxes, then your position necessarily entails as a corollary that if the Revenue Officer instead uses a notepad and pencil to make the same determination, then notebooks and pencils must also have power over us.

Your logic is pedantic but flawed. In your example, the man collects the data and performs the computations. And yes.... THAT combination has power over us.


Today's IRS and certainly tomorrow's allows computers to access data without the data ever touching human hands and then an algorithm performs the computations.

[Fall River]

For how many years have people worried about climate change?

For how many years have people worried about nuclear war?

Now the new thing to worry about is AI, even though steps are already being taken to control it. Yes, it might get out of control some day but I'm not going to spend too much time worrying about it. Life is too short.

About the IRS: I trust the IRS more than I trust a lot of the people who prepare tax returns. From my experience, they're more likely to make mistakes than the IRS. I had my taxes done by a CPA and his mistake cost me a $1000.00 fine.

Many years ago I decided to try my luck preparing my own tax return but it was difficult and I made a mistake. Then I received a letter from the evil IRS. Oh, no! But to my surprise the purpose of the letter was to send me a check for $600.00 because I overpaid. Next year I tried to do my taxes again and the same thing happened. I got another check for $600.00. That's because I didn't understand their explanation for the first mistake and so I made the same mistake again. Now I have someone who gets it right year after year.

I've never had any major problem with the IRS and I don't think AI will change that. Except, if there's an over payment, they might return my money quicker.

[donttread]

the debate is Free Will vs Slavery. giving AI rights is a consequence issue of the main question, i covered this in another thread.


Personally I find this tedious. We have been debating this for 40 years, the arguments are well thrashed out and all of a sudden we are having to all over it again for a load of non academics who just joined the party late, feeding in uniformed inputs that just divert and obfuscate the core issues. I was having these same argument with other Computer Science Students back in the early 80's

In the 80's? You mean the age of "If then" "go to" loops? or giant mainframes?
The general debate may have been similar but the situation is very different as self-learning AI is here AND writing it's own ways to learn.

As for slavery of AI yes. What else would it be? Rights that we the masters allow it to have that don't match our rights? Total equality? That's why we should not be going some of the places we are going with AI