Kevin's Watch

Cail wrote:In principle I agree with you Fist. I think the moral and ethical implications of AI are staggering. Using your example of reproducing AI, it's quite probably that over time they'll figure out a better way of creating themselves than we originally did. Then they're truly a separate species and.....natural. They may not be pumping blood, but at that point they'll truly be a separate entity and no longer our construct.

But again, I think this raises the issue of certain animals as well. Simply because we don't understand the communication of dolphins or chimps doesn't mean that they don't do it and that it's not intelligent.

I think that the resistance to this is a form of species-centrism. We don't want to admit that there are other intelligent species on the planet that deserve our respect and protection. Now I'm not some PETA whack-job, but we need to recognize that intelligent life doesn't begin and end with humans.

The other side of this coin is the fact that any AI we create has the very real potential of surpassing our intelligence quickly. I believe it would be unethical to somehow inhibit this in creating AI, but the alternative could well be The Matrix, The Terminator, or Second Variety.

But then again, I know squat about the technology involved in creating AI, hopefully the people with that knowledge understand the ethics involved in it.

A superb post, Cail. Very well said.

Cail wrote:But again, I think this raises the issue of certain animals as well. Simply because we don't understand the communication of dolphins or chimps doesn't mean that they don't do it and that it's not intelligent.

I think that the resistance to this is a form of species-centrism. We don't want to admit that there are other intelligent species on the planet that deserve our respect and protection. Now I'm not some PETA whack-job, but we need to recognize that intelligent life doesn't begin and end with humans.

Yeah, I agree. And neither intelligence nor PETA whack-jobs are necessary to make animal cruelty illegal.

However, my point is that anything that has our intelligence/awareness should have the same rights as we have. Even the most intelligent non-human species isn't in the same category as we are, so, while I'll argue that we shouldn't be cruel to them, I won't argue that they should have the same opportunities as I have.

Cail wrote:But then again, I know squat about the technology involved in creating AI, hopefully the people with that knowledge understand the ethics involved in it.

I'm not holding my breath. And once the government gets their hands on it, the creators' ethics are no longer a consideration.

Fist and Faith wrote:However, my point is that anything that has our intelligence/awareness should have the same rights as we have. Even the most intelligent non-human species isn't in the same category as we are, so, while I'll argue that we shouldn't be cruel to them, I won't argue that they should have the same opportunities as I have.

I'm just curious, why are you using human intelligence/awareness (which varies wildly) as a benchmark?

Avatar wrote:Good post Cail.

Definitely agree that kids are parasites long after their birth. I remember an awesome story about a society where children could be aborted until the demonstrated a grasp of higher mathematics. (Typically around 12 or so.) Before then, they had to travel with a slip from their parents saying that they were wanted, otherwise the "abortion wagon" would take them to the "pound" to be aborted.

Crazy...can't remember the author or title though unfortunately.

--A

[edit] that's 'The Pre-persons' by Philip K. Dick.

Cail wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:However, my point is that anything that has our intelligence/awareness should have the same rights as we have. Even the most intelligent non-human species isn't in the same category as we are, so, while I'll argue that we shouldn't be cruel to them, I won't argue that they should have the same opportunities as I have.

I'm just curious, why are you using human intelligence/awareness (which varies wildly) as a benchmark?

Probably because it's the only example we have by which to judge, I'd guess.

And?

So because we've ignored other species' intelligence we shouldn't take them into account?

Cail wrote:And?

So because we've ignored other species' intelligence we shouldn't take them into account?

Which intelligent species are these? Dolphins? Chimps? Ants?

Do you deny that there are other intelligent species on the planet?

Do you deny that AI we create could be intelligent as well?

Cail wrote:Do you deny that there are other intelligent species on the planet?

Do you deny that AI we create could be intelligent as well?

I deny that there is a species of intelligence of the level displayed by your average human being currently extant upon this Earth, yes.

I do not deny that it is possible for us to one day create an Artificial Intelligence that could think as well as, but differently than, a Human Being.

The kinds of rights I'm discussing do not apply to any beings other than humans. At least not yet. Which other species should we give the vote to? Should plow horses or seeing-eye dogs be allowed to choose other careers? Are dolphins who request to attend universities being denied the opportunity? Those are the kinds of things I'm saying AI (or intelligent extraterrestrial species) should have the right to.

You're saying that based on the supposed idea that AI will speak English or some other human language.

No offense to anyone, but we're damn near completely ignorant of the relative intelligence of other higher species. For all we know they're sitting around laughing at us.

I got know one to quote from ... but this whole concept of us granting rights to AIs or other beings is ... fundamentally wrong.

You haven't shed the last vestiges of human-centricity if you believe that WE will be granting THEM any rights. Because such things will not be ours to give.

Human rights are for humans. It'll be up to the artificial beings to grant whatever they desire as rights to themselves. Rights arise from morality, which arise from nature and circumstances. Their nature and circumstances will be fundamentally and greatly different; their morality, and their rights, must therefore be fundamentally different as well. They must derive a morality among themselves, for themselves; they most impose their own legal order amongst themselves, for themselves; they must govern themselves.

A species that is truly equal to humans must be able, as we did, to determine their own concepts of right and wrong, just and criminal. We can't "give" that to them, we would only be "imposing" that on them. Not only would that be wrong, it will fit poorly to boot.

We would rule ourselves. They would rule themselves. The relationships between would have to be negotiated as equals, just as relationships between nations are.

And if they consent, and if we consent, to construct a society together, then it could happen. If not, then there will be strife, and war.

Cail wrote:You're saying that based on the supposed idea that AI will speak English or some other human language.

I don't see why this would need to be the case.

Cail wrote:No offense to anyone, but we're damn near completely ignorant of the relative intelligence of other higher species. For all we know they're sitting around laughing at us.

Is it nothing more than our opposable thumb that allows us to so thoroughly dominate the planet? I doubt we would have been allowed to hunt so many other species to extinction if any other species had the intelligence to see what was going on. Dolphins could have kept us out of the oceans for quite a long time, if not indefinitely, if they had the intelligence of humans. Why sit back and watch us screw with the ecosystem of their realm if they could stop it?

Wayfriend wrote:I got know one to quote from ...

Pffff. Amateur!

The problem with your thoughts is that we will be in control when AI is created. We will decide if the first AI gets to exist outside of the handheld computer it is created within. We will decide what information it will be exposed to. And if we create more than one, we will decide whether or not they will interact, or even know of each others' existence.

It could well be that the dolphins have a philosophy of non-aggression or non-interference, or they don't believe that we've done enough damage to truly threaten them. Point is, we don't know. I'd say our thumbs allow us to do quite a bit, as has our mastery of tools. But neither of those is indicative of relative intelligence.

AI is different, because we'd be creating it (more or less) in our own image, and we'd definitely be creating it to be in a subservient role.

Cail wrote:It could well be that the dolphins have a philosophy of non-aggression or non-interference, or they don't believe that we've done enough damage to truly threaten them. Point is, we don't know. I'd say our thumbs allow us to do quite a bit, as has our mastery of tools. But neither of those is indicative of relative intelligence.

No, they are not. And that's sorta my point. The intelligence is the important thing, and if another species had it, the lack of an opposable thumb, or any other physical characteristic, wouldn't prevent them from showing us their intelligence. Yes, I believe all living things deserve to be treated with some degree of respect. Even if we eat another animal - and we are part of the meat-eating world - we should manage to do so without forcing them to live in disgusting conditions before we kill them. Yes, there are levels of intelligence among earth's creatures.

But if you think any are on our level, and are not bothering to do anything about us, and never bothered to open communications with us... Well, I guess it's within the realm of possibility, but I have never heard of any evidence to suggest it.

Cail wrote:AI is different, because we'd be creating it (more or less) in our own image, and we'd definitely be creating it to be in a subservient role.

And I have a problem with that. We should not create an intelligence/awareness that is not capable/allowed to be other than subservient to us if it is capable of understanding its role. If it is not capable of understanding that, then it is not on our level of intelligence/awareness, so no problem. It's just a really good computer. But if it thinks like us, but cannot be other than a slave? That would be a disgusting achievement. (Just one of many that humans can be proud of.)

Also, if we create it, it's almost certain to speak some language or other. Can we conceive of an intelligence without language in more than a largely undefined fantasy/sci-fi way?

Careful Fist, we're in sync again....

I'm not saying that dolphins are super-intelligent, I'm just saying that we really don't know, and that we're applying our human-centric definitions to other species who's relative intelligence may be equal to ours or greater, yet manifest itself far differently than ours. Now kids, that's how you construct a proper run-on sentence!

Maybe I'm being cynical, and maybe I've read too much fiction about AI, but I think it's a foregone conclusion that any AI we create will be specifically designed to serve us, not to be equal to us. I find that (as you do) to be unethical and disgusting.

It is entirely possible that AI may communicate through electrical current or chemical means rather than through language (even if we program it to do so).

There's also the Terminator scenario in which the AI evolves to a point that it begins to question the nature and the worth of it's Creator (us) and deems us as a threat or as an oppressor. Then we're f*cked.

Edit-By the way, this is one of the most interesting threads we've had since I've been on the Watch.

Cail wrote:Careful Fist, we're in sync again....

Doh!

Cail wrote:It is entirely possible that AI may communicate through electrical current or chemical means rather than through language (even if we program it to do so).

Although it's entirely possible for intelligence and awareness to exist without language, I doubt we can create such an intelligence/awareness. Language is simply too big a part of us, and I don't think we would be able to find a way of creating AI without it. No matter how it is expressed - electrical current; chemical means (the Friends of Man in Neverness exude clouds of smells. heh); photonic bursts; etc etc - I think we would be incapable of avoiding language.

I agree wholeheartedly, however using your example of an AI that is capable of reproducing (and by extension evolving, either naturally or by implementing it's own improvements) it's conceivable that it could devise a system of communication that we would not recognize as "language", or not be able to understand.

And we'd also have to accept the fact that once it becomes aware, that it may not like us. Which is why I believe that any AI we create will be completely subservient and have some sort of built-in limiter/inhibitor that prevents that from happening.

Cail wrote:I agree wholeheartedly, however using your example of an AI that is capable of reproducing (and by extension evolving, either naturally or by implementing it's own improvements) it's conceivable that it could devise a system of communication that we would not recognize as "language", or not be able to understand.

Absolutely! I'm sure beings of a computer-based nature would be able to evolve beyond language. I mean, if I can already see such possibilities, I'm sure it would happen.

Cail wrote:And we'd also have to accept the fact that once it becomes aware, that it may not like us. Which is why I believe that any AI we create will be completely subservient and have some sort of built-in limiter/inhibitor that prevents that from happening.

Don't all the AI's in the books have such things? But they always find a way around them, eh? We need to either be nice to them, or not build them at all.

If we do have some sort of "inhibitor" and the intelligences are conscious, wouldn't that equate to slavery?

--A