Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
14
... LastLast
  1. #221
    Pit Lord alms1407's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyzhi View Post
    If someone broke in and the robot killed them (defending you) then its the robbers fault and it should just be forgotten.
    Self aware robots shouldn't be allowed to kill people, at best they should just be able to detain people and should be built to such a capacity.

    ~Signature made by Resentful~

  2. #222
    Herald of the Titans Ynna's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyzhi View Post
    I feel only people who stick to the law deserve human rights, Robots will stick to it and "shouldn't" if programmed correctly ever hurt anyone or anything so shouldn't need human rights in a way.. If someone broke in and the robot killed them (defending you) then its the robbers fault and it should just be forgotten.
    Seriously? Only people who stick to the law deserve human rights? Killing prisoners to lower the prison population isn't a problem, then? Why even bother putting them in prison. Back in the '20's when homosexuals were going against the law by having sex, they should have just put them down, like a dog that did some bad things. Yeah, great idea man.

    Robots should have the same right to kill humans (and other robots) as humans have. Which is to say, none at all.
    Retired Holy Priest
    As a rule, I try to act on the internet as I would in real life. If I have offended you, feel free to point it out. Unless I meant to offend you, I will probably apologize.

  3. #223
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Ynna View Post
    Seriously? Only people who stick to the law deserve human rights? Killing prisoners to lower the prison population isn't a problem, then? Why even bother putting them in prison. Back in the '20's when homosexuals were going against the law by having sex, they should have just put them down, like a dog that did some bad things. Yeah, great idea man.

    Robots should have the same right to kill humans (and other robots) as humans have. Which is to say, none at all.
    And the funny thing is, under that logic [humanity requires abiding by laws], people would see those of different nations as animals because they don't follow the same rules laws they do.
    Last edited by Grizzly Willy; 2012-05-06 at 12:16 AM.

  4. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerogue View Post
    I hope so, we could eventually reach the point where we get a robot president! Progress! Efficiency! DESTRUCTION OF THE HUMAN RACE!

    [IMG]http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://images.wikia.com/en.futurama/images/9/99/Robot_Nixon_body.png&sa=X&ei=tkekT5feHYa09QSJuIzAAw&ved=0CAsQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNE2shXbbKH5TbO00 Y2ZW8oLYxRuNw[IMG]

    You know thats a human still right?

  5. #225
    Herald of the Titans Matt0193's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Chair
    Posts
    2,508
    It's artificial. Not natural.

    So no.
    "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." - Ayn Rand

  6. #226
    No, because you gave them the sense of feeling and emotion...just don't program them to feel...problem solved. I just can't see any use in making a robot that had feelings. (emotional and physical)

  7. #227
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Thassarian View Post
    It's artificial. Not natural.

    So no.
    What makes something that's natural deserving of rights compared to something that's artificial?

  8. #228
    The Patient Orestis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    In the midst of failure.
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by Thassarian View Post
    It's artificial. Not natural.

    So no.
    I agree with this! I will no longer treat people I know who were not conceived naturally like real people! Not natural after all...

  9. #229
    This will be a point of major contention in the future should AI develop to that point. I suspect that we'll have aliens before AI so maybe replace "human rights" with "living rights."

    And honestly it depends. Most of the rights granted to organics would likely be superfluous and useless to a self-aware AI. An AI would likely need its own set of rights drafted in conjunction with organic rights. Something to prevent discrimination and promote sociocultural integration but each in relevant-for-the-organism-in-question terms.
    Torethirnyi the Astral Walker - Orc Enhancement Shaman - <Conviction> of Korgath - Temporarily out of Retirement


    Nothing makes you hate MMOs more than having played MMOs.

  10. #230
    So is this topic in preparation for when Skynet takes over and some hippies are protesting that we shouldnt fight them even though terminators are running rampant and killing everyone?

  11. #231
    Read R.U.R. by Karel Čapek - Oh look, someone thought the very same thing you did, only almost 80 years ago... edit: 91 years ago.

    Taken from wikipedia:
    The play begins in a factory that makes artificial people, made of synthetic organic matter, called "robots". Unlike the modern usage of the term, these creatures are closer to the modern idea of androids or even clones, as they can be mistaken for humans and can think for themselves. They seem happy to work for humans, although that changes and a hostile robot rebellion leads to the extinction of the human race.

  12. #232
    The Patient Goldpaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Neverland
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Its actually a fairly interesting question. Essentially you have to ask yourself why humans have rights. What is it about humanity that makes us different than animals?
    Not a single thing. Humans haven't got rights by nature. We defined those rights ourselves, and they only exists as long as there is a majority of people to support and enforce them.

    Human rights are nothing but another virtual concept created in order to set a standard for living conditions in our societies.

    As the world change, we see more and more laws and regulations online. If AI - or Artificial Sentience which might be a far more important thing to discuss - gets to the point where it is so complex and advanced that it have its own society, than that society will need rules and regulations too. Basic Sentient Rights might not be that far off at all.

    Or let me put it another way; why should a sentient intelligence of any sort do anything we asked it if we treated it like a slave, like an animal, and it was able to understand that? No, there can be no doubt. If we create a sentient intelligence that intelligence must have rights. Or we're asking for problems.

  13. #233
    if they develop true sentience, then yes they deserve "human" rights.

    to quote optimus prime here, "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings."

  14. #234
    The Patient Goldpaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Neverland
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by Thassarian View Post
    It's artificial. Not natural.

    So no.
    Bad breath, farts, body hair, cancer, HIV, and hairy armpits. Earthquakes, tsunamis, asteroid crashes. All natural things. Not all natural things are good. We are humans. We thrive on the unnatural. Our entire society is made of artifical objects. Even a lot of our food. It can be argued there isn't a single natural cell in our bodies anymore.

    And also... are you some sort of god or higher being? If not, who are you to decide what is natural and what has the right to exist? You can't even say for sure if we are natural either. We're natural because we're made of flesh and blood? Then what if we're able to create artificial sentient beings in a biological form. They shouldn't have rights because they weren't natural? Not to mention artificial insemination.

  15. #235
    Despite being the theme for alot of sci fi novels and movies AI is set to carry out a function. It follows logic, if this this then that. Humans are motivated by evolutionary instincts such as the need to procreate, the need for shelter, the need for sustenance to survive. We have evolved to be survivors, a machine cant care if it lives or dies because it hasnt evolved. It has simply been designed by someone who has evolved with these evolutionary characteristics.

    In hindsight I think if one feels that a machine can adapt and survive the same way that a human can, and was created by another intelligence, then human beings would have had to have been created by another intelligence I.E. Intelligent Design.
    Last edited by Seani; 2012-05-06 at 07:56 AM.

  16. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by orissa View Post
    So I got to thinking, if AI ever got to a level where it could think, feel, perceive, and learn as humans do, if AI was capable of true sentience, would they then deserve human rights?
    Machine life would by its very nature be significantly different from biological life. There is no reason to assume that AI will be able to feel as humans do. Organic beings have emotions and instincts because that is the way life has evolved (on this planet). We feel pleasure or fear or sadness because of our brain chemistry, and not simply because of our awareness. It does not come automatically with achieving sentience. An AI that becomes self-aware isn't going to suddenly acquire self-preservation instincts, or compassion, or murderous intents, much less a desire to vote.

    So I don't really think that machine intelligence would deserve "human" rights just because they are sentient. Mind you I don't think that there is anything particular special or sacred about humans either, and in a broad sense humans are essentially robots made from organic materials. But our needs and wants would be so different that I'd say machine life would require its own set of rights. Not that I think it'll be a good idea to create sentient life at all in the first place, but yeah.

  17. #237
    Stood in the Fire strangebreed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    dreaming
    Posts
    434
    yes because have you seen in every game or movie when you don't treat them like people they turn and kill us.... so ya treat them nice

    besides movie and games

    i just think if they are developed enough where they can think for themselves why not? doubt it would cause more harm than not doing so.
    I'd torture a thousand souls just to see her smile.

  18. #238
    Mechagnome shootyadead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    578
    Nope. Human rights only apply to humans. Not saying they don't deserve some rights/laws to protect them, but not human rights. As far as we know, animals are self-aware and "free thinking" and they don't get human rights. Animal rights sure, but again, no human rights.
    "I am the hope of the universe. I am the answer to all living things that cry out for peace. I am the protector of the innocent. I am the light in the darkness. I am truth. Ally to good! Nightmare to you!!!"

  19. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by Ynna View Post
    This discussion hardly works if you assume an AI would automatically be evil. The premise was human-level AI, using C3PO as an example.
    You didn't quite understand my point. I didn't assume it would be automatically evil. I only suggested it would protect its own interest over anything else, just like we do. Do we consider ourselves evil when we step on an anthill?

    And about that human-level AI: it wouldn't stay like that forever, like I pointed out. This isn't just some random rambling of my own. It's a generally accepted view among scientists that an AI would grow in intelligence faster than a biological creature.

    Altruism still hasn't died out in evolution, because it helps the survival of the species. Evolution and biology hardly care about the individual organism. So no, not every lifeform is completely selfish. Pure selfishness isn't a good evolutionary strategy for any animal that lives in a group, despite what a cynical outlook on life might tell you. Cooperation is a very good survival strategy.
    Altruism usually only exists between species that are not intelligent or of equal intelligence or the same species. Humans are on the top of the foodchain atm, how many species do we cooperate with? An AI would benefit from us no doubt... up to a point. But when it became self sustainable why would it want us around? We would be competing with it for recources.

    And even between species it isn't all death and horror. Domesticated have evolved side by side with humans, and in nature as well you'll see different species collaborating and unlikely partnerships.
    Domestication isn't a partnership. We don't need cats and dogs. We like them and think they're cute but we don't need them to survive. Sheep and cows etc. we do need but we don't cooperate with them, we just need them for food and clothing. It's a oneway "symbiosis". The other side doesn't benefit from us at all. They don't get to voice their opinion about this "relationship" of ours.
    Last edited by zorkuus; 2012-05-06 at 10:59 AM.

  20. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by shootyadead View Post
    Nope. Human rights only apply to humans. Not saying they don't deserve some rights/laws to protect them, but not human rights. As far as we know, animals are self-aware and "free thinking" and they don't get human rights. Animal rights sure, but again, no human rights.
    What about dolphins then? They have human rights.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •