If Android or A.I because self aware, then do they deserve rights?

[Girrag]

If AI become self-aware then main question will be if humans deserve any rights outside of being cute pets in best case.

[Jester Joe]

Absolutely. Why wouldn't they?

[Deleted]

Some do, some don't. Fish have no rights, of any kind. Most wildlife the same is true. Abuse laws tend to only apply to pets.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, we do know that AI is not real, and how AI minds work, because we are the ones who build them and program them. You guys watch too much TV.

- - - Updated - - -



Your prior post was gibberish. Re-read it. It's like trying to read a Trump speech transcript.

There is no such thing as self aware AI, and there never will be. If there ever is, it will be so far in the future, that we will have no reference point. That's the bottom line. I'm not giving human rights to my television, vacuum cleaner, or anything else made out of metal that has no soul.

I don't watch too much TV, the moment an AI is self-aware and starts working on it's own code we can only hope to keep up. I'm not saying that in a skynet way, but simply that it's retarded to assume that we will know how something not created yet will be.

- - - Updated - - -

I know because I know what being self aware means. The notion that a machine can achieve a level of understanding that almost no animals on earth can, is a big reach, imo. Sure, it's a fun topic for a sci-fi movie. But, it's not real. It's not an actual thing.

Machines are tools made by man, to assist in various things. They can no more become self aware, than a rock can. Beauty and the Beast is not real. There are no castles where the silverware talks and has feelings.

- - - Updated - - -



See, I agree that this topic makes for interesting games and other entertainment. It's pretty fun to ponder what humans would do if the rules of the universe were different. This is a standard sci-fi trope, and one that I love.

However, AI isn't real. We program them to think how we want and to do what we say. If they have the ability to learn, it's only because we programmed that way. That doesn't make them sentient.

It doesn't make them sentient, it could lead to them becoming that though...as I say over and over, why do people keep making bold claims like they are actually engineering this shit.

[Tijuana]

True AI is no more programed than we are. Evolutionary biology/genetics programed us... the big one being the "Us vs them"/"In & out groups" our biological sex and personalities... all a mix of genetics (programing) and environmental experience from parents, society, etc.

We are conscious, so conciousness exists in the universe... there is no rule that says conciousness can only exist in a biological brain.

I mean, some people believe in deities too. You are welcome to believe in whatever fantasies you want. Freedom baby, yeah.

[PC2]

Consciousness exists. Deities do not have any evidence of being real.

There is no magic in the brain, since there is no magic in the brain it can probably be reproduced using the same matter it is made out of, but in a different configuration/media.

There is no physical law that says this is not possible.

The non-deterministic free will version of consciousness is similar to a deity. Essentially distributed mysticism.

[Tijuana]

Consciousness exists. Deities do not have any evidence of being real.

There is no magic in the brain, since there is no magic in the brain it can probably be reproduced using the same matter it is made out of, but in a different configuration/media.

There is no physical law that says this is not possible.

Perhaps there is no physical law. However, there is no proof of the existence of machine consciousness either. Humans don't program the brains of other humans. Until machines are being somehow created in ways other than humans programming them, I fail to see how this will ever be an actual thing. Mimicking humans does not make them sentient.

[Argarock]

If a 'thing' is capable of functioning like a human being, you cant really tell wether it's a human being or not, and it want's human rights. Why the fuck would you not let it have them?

No, your toaster wont have human rights, and neither will your television. But that thing educating your kids does.

[Tijuana]

We do program the brains of other humans... we create experiences(upbringing, interaction with and from society), and educate people.... genetics does the other programming.

There is no proof of machine consciousness because it has to have a media created in which it can arise. The media does not exist yet, or we do not have the right algorithm. Which is why so many people are working on it...

LOL

No, they are not working on this out of curiosity. AI has market value dude. BIG market value.

[Tijuana]

AGI is the goal of AI research... look up Ray Kurzweil... he is the director of engineering at Google. (focused on machine learning and language processing).

Here is a documentary about him:

Making money is the goal. Get serious and start thinking right.

[Jibjub]

This idea that self aware = moral superior to "self unaware" is silly. You can't even prove self awareness. How can you prove bees are not self aware??? How can you prove you ARE self aware? What are you doing that is much more "aware" than any other creature?

It's basically the 5th Wave book series, but if a super smart alien race was light years ahead of us in knowledge and "Awareness" would that give them a right to kill us all like we kill cockroaches???

Either humans are animals or they are apart from animals. If you think we are just animals, then a lot of the shit we do, including a lot of the shit most people agree we shouldn't do, is pretty justifiable and probably even should be encouraged. If you believe we are NOT "just animals" and that we are apart, then we can talk ethics and morals.

[PC2]

Perhaps there is no physical law. However, there is no proof of the existence of machine consciousness either. Humans don't program the brains of other humans. Until machines are being somehow created in ways other than humans programming them, I fail to see how this will ever be an actual thing. Mimicking humans does not make them sentient.

There wasn't any proof of consciousness 5 billion years ago, yet it became possible with information processing. Doing the same information process in machines is extremely difficult but not impossible. Chips being nearly 2D and having low connectivity means they have a massive disadvantage compared to neurons.

[IIamaKing]

No, because they are not human beings.

SO if we met a race of sentient aliens, they dont deserve rights because they are not "human beings"? Seems fucked.

[Tijuana]

Maybe in your world... some of us do not really care about the money, though it's a nice perk.

In YOUR world, money is the point of corporations researching new products. Your notion that Google is studying AI, in order to just give away the tech, is based in what, exactly? I mean, how naive can we be, when we claim that tech research has no tie to money?

[Tijuana]

You can download TensorFlow, or OpenAI code/API for free.

Google wants to make money, people working on AI at Google get money for doing something they probably love. Go to some of the AI conventions, that is plainly clear.

Ray Kurzweil wrote a whole book about it.

The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology
https://www.amazon.com/Singularity-N.../dp/0143037889

You have to understand the people working in these places... they are not what you would call "normal". The only "normal" people are in marketing.

Yes, they are normal. They are exactly like everyone else. Furthermore, your notion that Google did not hire them to make Google money is about the most ridiculous thing a human as ever said, sentient or not.

[Shadowferal]

Since we're playing with sci-fi, then Sky-Net will be inevitable.

[Tijuana]

Do you work at Google, or any tech company? I do.

Google hires people to make money; the people are not google, they have their own ideas and intentions.

Yep. And if they don't make Google money, they get fired. Your notion that tech research is done out of charity if fucking ridiculous. It's literally the most silly point I have ever heard a human make.

- - - Updated - - -

Since we're playing with sci-fi, then Sky-Net will be inevitable.

John Connors already came back and stopped Windows 9, negating the robot dominant future.

[Tijuana]

You seem to think perusing your passion and making money are mutually exclusive... why?

You seem to think that making money is not involved in corporations. Why?

[FlatBootyJudy]

No, they should be aborted.

[Tijuana]

Where did I say that? I said Google wants to make money, people on the other hand, people like me, the money is a secondary consideration. Ray Kurzweil is working at google because of his interest in technology, money is a secondary consideration. Same thing for me, and many other people in Tech, or STEM fields...

We love the things we do, and we love that we can get paid to do them.

And you do not think Google would win the "arms" race if they created an AGI? (Which would bring them a whole lot of money). China is trying to beat US corporations to it.

No, you are wrong. Every employee at Google would take a job that paid twice as much to work elsewhere. If you want to engineer machines to behave as humans do, it would be a good start to understand humans to begin with.

[PC2]

@Connal, Did you read this essay from a few months ago by Karl Friston? Consciousness is not a thing, but a process of inference.