Intelligent Machines

[Sepherose]

What would be the purpose of building machines with emotion and intelligence anyways? They're made to serve a purpose. Creating them so they can fail to serve their purpose seems counter-intuitive.

That is a good question.

 

Creating machines intelligent enough to think for themselves is entirely counter productive.

 

Not necessarily, innovation, some would argue, requires creative thought, and that, some would again argue, requires emotion. They could still serve a purpose however. There are many dangerous jobs that they could do with ease comparative to us, also they could help develop cleaner, more efficient technology, at a faster rate I might add. I don't see how allowing them free will and intelligence would make them LESS productive.

You would be required to give the machines equal pay and equal rights though.

 

It is immoral to put intelligent beings into slave labor, and it will come back to bite you.

 

So intelligent machines doing jobs that are dangerous to humans? Maybe, but it isn't worth it in my opinion. There are other options.

 

I never said anything about treating them differently than humans in my post. I agree that if they were intelligent and self aware, that treating them like tools is the same as slavery.

 

@ub3rman: I'm not talking about pre-programmed emotions here, I am talking about developing self awareness, whether or not emotions come into play. And by developing, I mean truly learning it themselves, so if they had emotion, they would have developed them, not been pre-programmed with them, therefore, not really showing off on the part of the programmer that made the base framework that the AI develops around.

[marharth]

I would really like to see the people who voted no and unsure posting here...

 

It honestly pisses me off people think that simply because a intelligent creature is not the exact same as mankind, it should not have equal rights.

[Sepherose]

I would really like to see the people who voted no and unsure posting here...

 

It honestly pisses me off people think that simply because a intelligent creature is not the exact same as mankind, it should not have equal rights.

 

I agree, I would like to hear some arguments against the concept, as it almost seems like those opposed can't really grasp a reason why, which is understandable, as those machines would be fairly alien to us in many ways. I'm not saying they couldn't come up with a valid point, I just have yet to hear one or read one. And about the unsure vote, I don't know exactly, and this is pure speculation, but I think that may have been Vagrant0, and he was the first to reply to this thread.

[kvnchrist]

I don't think it's an inability to grasp concepts. The reason I haven't chimed in is arguing fantasies doesn't appeal to me. Sorry, but we might as well be talking about gay marriage between unicorns.

[Sync182]

I didn't vote, simply because it's too complex a topic to give a conclusion on when the subject hasn't arisen yet.

 

However, I'd like to offer this quote from the 1982 movie TRON:

Dr. Walter Gibbs: Ha, ha. You've got to expect some static. After all, computers are just machines; they can't think.

Alan Bradley: Some programs will be thinking soon.

Dr. Walter Gibbs: Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Sync182

[Sepherose]

I don't think it's an inability to grasp concepts. The reason I haven't chimed in is arguing fantasies doesn't appeal to me. Sorry, but we might as well be talking about gay marriage between unicorns.

 

Actually, if you read through all of those science articles, you would realize that something like that is in fact an actual likelihood.

 

Vernor Vinge on the Singularity

Who Vernor Vinge is.

 

And yes, he is a science fiction author, but was also a Mathematics Professor at SDSU, and a computer scientist. I would say that makes him a fairly reliable source.

[kvnchrist]

I don't think it's an inability to grasp concepts. The reason I haven't chimed in is arguing fantasies doesn't appeal to me. Sorry, but we might as well be talking about gay marriage between unicorns.

 

Actually, if you read through all of those science articles, you would realize that something like that is in fact an actual likelihood.

 

 

Actual to me doesn't fit in with the word likelihood.

 

That's like distinct possibility of an affirmed maybe.

 

I understand what you guys are trying to say and it is noble, but I was responding to the statement that those people who voted no weren't responding for a given reason.

 

All sentient beings deserve respect, dignity and honor, even when they can't understand the concept. Animals are a good example of this. My question is how you can determine if these so-called intelligent machines are sentient. Are they self aware, beyond their mechanical need for diagnostics. A mere computer can be set to run diagnostic tests at startup, but does that make it sentient?

[marharth]

I don't think it's an inability to grasp concepts. The reason I haven't chimed in is arguing fantasies doesn't appeal to me. Sorry, but we might as well be talking about gay marriage between unicorns.

 

Actually, if you read through all of those science articles, you would realize that something like that is in fact an actual likelihood.

 

 

Actual to me doesn't fit in with the word likelihood.

 

That's like distinct possibility of an affirmed maybe.

 

I understand what you guys are trying to say and it is noble, but I was responding to the statement that those people who voted no weren't responding for a given reason.

 

All sentient beings deserve respect, dignity and honor, even when they can't understand the concept. Animals are a good example of this. My question is how you can determine if these so-called intelligent machines are sentient. Are they self aware, beyond their mechanical need for diagnostics. A mere computer can be set to run diagnostic tests at startup, but does that make it sentient?

If a machine reaches a point where it can learn and have thoughts and opinions on its own, without any outside programming, it has reached the point where it deserves equal rights.

[kvnchrist]

I don't think it's an inability to grasp concepts. The reason I haven't chimed in is arguing fantasies doesn't appeal to me. Sorry, but we might as well be talking about gay marriage between unicorns.

 

Actually, if you read through all of those science articles, you would realize that something like that is in fact an actual likelihood.

 

 

Actual to me doesn't fit in with the word likelihood.

 

That's like distinct possibility of an affirmed maybe.

 

I understand what you guys are trying to say and it is noble, but I was responding to the statement that those people who voted no weren't responding for a given reason.

 

All sentient beings deserve respect, dignity and honor, even when they can't understand the concept. Animals are a good example of this. My question is how you can determine if these so-called intelligent machines are sentient. Are they self aware, beyond their mechanical need for diagnostics. A mere computer can be set to run diagnostic tests at startup, but does that make it sentient?

If a machine reaches a point where it can learn and have thoughts and opinions on its own, without any outside programming, it has reached the point where it deserves equal rights.

 

How do you judge that? How do you judge wither a machine is any of these, and not just a measured response based on it's programs and it's sensory equipment?

[marharth]

I don't think it's an inability to grasp concepts. The reason I haven't chimed in is arguing fantasies doesn't appeal to me. Sorry, but we might as well be talking about gay marriage between unicorns.

 

Actually, if you read through all of those science articles, you would realize that something like that is in fact an actual likelihood.

 

 

Actual to me doesn't fit in with the word likelihood.

 

That's like distinct possibility of an affirmed maybe.

 

I understand what you guys are trying to say and it is noble, but I was responding to the statement that those people who voted no weren't responding for a given reason.

 

All sentient beings deserve respect, dignity and honor, even when they can't understand the concept. Animals are a good example of this. My question is how you can determine if these so-called intelligent machines are sentient. Are they self aware, beyond their mechanical need for diagnostics. A mere computer can be set to run diagnostic tests at startup, but does that make it sentient?

If a machine reaches a point where it can learn and have thoughts and opinions on its own, without any outside programming, it has reached the point where it deserves equal rights.

 

How do you judge that? How do you judge wither a machine is any of these, and not just a measured response based on it's programs and it's sensory equipment?

Unless a mad scientist makes a robot to do that, I am pretty sure a robot that can learn will be a national news story.

 

It is pretty simple to determine if a robot is programmed or not, try to have a advanced conversation with it. Programming can only hold so much information and calculations, eventually you will say or ask something and the robot will screw up.

 

 

The process of a machine learning would be close to that of a human learning, so it wouldn't be too hard to tell the difference between programming and a machine actually learning.