If AI was created, should it have equal rights to humans?

[Ghogiel]

Which switch turns me off. We can dream and contemplate things we would like to do. It is what this topic is about. You are talking about a mechanism here. Not a human being.

 

I praise you for you compassion for other things. You bring up some interesting ideas, but the fact that their is a difference between living organisms and machines can't be discounted. If you had the choice between saving your cat or dog and saving an AI robot, which would you do?

 

Would it be any different between saving a human being and one of your animals. I think the humans would win out before your animals and the animals would win out before the robot. To have equal rights, they have to be equal, and they aren't anything even close. That's what I'm saying.

An AI could dream and contemplate things it would like to do as well. An AI does not have to have a off switch. Human begins are mechanisms. Not metal ones, but they are mechanisms.

 

Living organisms are flesh and blood. Why does flesh and blood matter so much over what the mind is?

 

A AI with a mind exactly the same as a human is not equal? In what world? Just because it is made out of different materiel or because it looks different does not mean it should be denied equal rights.

 

You can imagine these AI constructs will be able to do as much as you want, to paint them as close to human as you wish. The idea that a construct has no off switch is ludicrous. Every mechanism known to man, and all those of science fiction, which is all you really have to go with, have had off switches. Flesh and blood matter, because they are human and humanity is what brings we as humans together.

 

I like how you simply ignored me point about saving or rescuing people. Are you telling me that you would not chose to save a human beings life over saving an AI construct, if not saving the construct would result in the total destruction of the construct. It is the height of humanity to care for each other. To see another person as important. I know there are people out there that wouldn't lift a finger to help anuone, but I am confident you would do what you could. Which would you choose and why?

I think for me it would be circumstantial. If this AI is a good friend of mine and the human in question a total stranger, I might actually be saving my good friend. I might be considered selfish for that, I don't imagine I would find it easy to consider a strangers life over that of a friend. Strangers are all over the place, friends are harder to find.

[marharth]

You can imagine these AI constructs will be able to do as much as you want, to paint them as close to human as you wish. The idea that a construct has no off switch is ludicrous. Every mechanism known to man, and all those of science fiction, which is all you really have to go with, have had off switches. Flesh and blood matter, because they are human and humanity is what brings we as humans together.

 

I like how you simply ignored me point about saving or rescuing people. Are you telling me that you would not chose to save a human beings life over saving an AI construct, if not saving the construct would result in the total destruction of the construct. It is the height of humanity to care for each other. To see another person as important. I know there are people out there that wouldn't lift a finger to help anuone, but I am confident you would do what you could. Which would you choose and why?

This topic was made under a set of assumptions. It doesn't even matter if it has a off switch or not. Humans also have off switches, it has nothing to do with it.

 

AI do not require a off switch. No machine requires a off switch.

 

I also don't see your question as important, but I will answer it. It depends on the importance of the human and the AI. I would go through the same process I would if I was deciding to save one human over another human.

 

Being human is not about flesh and blood. You are saying organs is what makes a human. Guess what is also a organ? Skin.

[kvnchrist]

You can imagine these AI constructs will be able to do as much as you want, to paint them as close to human as you wish. The idea that a construct has no off switch is ludicrous. Every mechanism known to man, and all those of science fiction, which is all you really have to go with, have had off switches. Flesh and blood matter, because they are human and humanity is what brings we as humans together.

 

I like how you simply ignored me point about saving or rescuing people. Are you telling me that you would not chose to save a human beings life over saving an AI construct, if not saving the construct would result in the total destruction of the construct. It is the height of humanity to care for each other. To see another person as important. I know there are people out there that wouldn't lift a finger to help anuone, but I am confident you would do what you could. Which would you choose and why?

This topic was made under a set of assumptions. It doesn't even matter if it has a off switch or not. Humans also have off switches, it has nothing to do with it.

 

AI do not require a off switch. No machine requires a off switch.

 

I also don't see your question as important, but I will answer it. It depends on the importance of the human and the AI. I would go through the same process I would if I was deciding to save one human over another human.

 

Being human is not about flesh and blood. You are saying organs is what makes a human. Guess what is also a organ? Skin.

 

 

The topic was about giving rights. What is more important than the right to exist. The right to survive. I asked yoiu who you would save? You keep on repeating the same old argument, but you fail to give any particulars. I asked you what switch a human has that would turn them completely off indefinitely just like a T.V. or an AI construct and months, or years letter turn them back on, and you've sidestepped the question.

 

I have not said that organs make us human. I said being human makes us human. We are more than the sum of our entrails. Life is more than thinking and reasoning. It is compassion, concern and every emotion, ideal and action that we as human beings take for granted. These things, if we were to create this AI will have to be programed into them. They are, if they existed a creation of metal and wires. Nothing man-made can be equal to man, and if we grant them the same rights as humans, then we degrade humanity to that of a machine.

 

If you have to stop and make a choice between saving a human or a machine, then I am very sorry for you. I know that no matter how important a piece of machinery is, to me, I know that I could always create another. I can't create the same human, even thought I might procreate 1000 times. We are all unique and If I found you in a situation as I've prescribed, I wouldn't hesitate to save you. I'm sorry that you would pause to do the same in return.

 

I think I will bow out of this thread. It is too demeaning to those that breath.

[draconix]

The fact that there is even a side arguing against this astounds me. I thought this kind mentality died out years ago, but apparently bigotry enthusiasm is alive and well... I'm ashamed that we as a species still aren't over ourselves. The idea of erring on the side of caution hasn't even occurred to you. If it's a flip of a coin, and on one side you have an inconvenience to you and on the other you have an atrocity of suppression and slavery, do you really have to think about the choice? ...Really?

 

I would weigh an AI and a human as equals, and would choose to save one or the other based on the merits of that being, just as I would hope they would do the same for me.

Edited October 1, 2011 by draconix

[lemonfan1]

The fact that there is even a side arguing against this astounds me. I thought this kind mentality died out years ago, but apparently bigotry is alive and well... I'm ashamed that we as a species still aren't over ourselves. The idea of erring on the side of caution hasn't even occurred to you. If it's a flip of a coin, and on one side you have an inconvenience to you and on the other you have an atrocity of suppression and slavery, do you really have to think about the choice? ...Really?

 

I would weigh an AI and a human as equals, and would choose to save one or the other based on the merits of that being, just as I would hope they would do the same for me.

 

As I stated back on page 5, humans are intolerant of each other, so you could imagine how an AI would be regarded. If humans are perfectly willing to deny the rights of another due to their nationality, religion, skin color, political views, sexuality or even gender, then there is absolutely no way an AI would be granted any sort of rights. Ever. The problem is humanity and the way humanity views itself and how they define "sentience".

 

The thought of an AI is actually a bit frightening to me. And I think that kind of technology shouldn't be tinkered with at this time. I know for a fact that the first thing any kind of AI would be used for is a weapon. Make a computer virus with an imagination and you'll have yourself something very, very difficult, if not impossible, to stop. Especially in the Information Age.

 

If an AI came to be and was a true AI, self aware and all that, I'd recognize it, personally. But I do think there should be some limitations. Due to it being an AI, it has the same potential for evil as a human, and a much, much greater level of potential damage it could do. Thus, reproduction of an AI should be strictly limited. Though, given an AI is probably immortal to begin with, reproduction shouldn't even be a requirement for an AI. And they should not be allowed to interface directly with any online device, due to the risk of digital viral infection.

 

All in all, I'd feel more comfortable with a VI, Virtual Intelligence. They're not self aware and only appear to be intelligent through clever programming.

[marharth]

The topic was about giving rights. What is more important than the right to exist. The right to survive. I asked yoiu who you would save? You keep on repeating the same old argument, but you fail to give any particulars. I asked you what switch a human has that would turn them completely off indefinitely just like a T.V. or an AI construct and months, or years letter turn them back on, and you've sidestepped the question.

 

I have not said that organs make us human. I said being human makes us human. We are more than the sum of our entrails. Life is more than thinking and reasoning. It is compassion, concern and every emotion, ideal and action that we as human beings take for granted. These things, if we were to create this AI will have to be programed into them. They are, if they existed a creation of metal and wires. Nothing man-made can be equal to man, and if we grant them the same rights as humans, then we degrade humanity to that of a machine.

 

If you have to stop and make a choice between saving a human or a machine, then I am very sorry for you. I know that no matter how important a piece of machinery is, to me, I know that I could always create another. I can't create the same human, even thought I might procreate 1000 times. We are all unique and If I found you in a situation as I've prescribed, I wouldn't hesitate to save you. I'm sorry that you would pause to do the same in return.

 

I think I will bow out of this thread. It is too demeaning to those that breath.

It depends. As someone else said, if the AI was a close friend and the human was not, I would save the AI. Or if the AI ran a massive charity company and saved millions of people, while the human was just a factory worker, I would also save the AI in that case.

 

There are a few pressure points on the human body that can kill you.

 

They don't have to be programed into them, why do you think that? It could be built like a mechanical version of the human brain.

 

Being human makes us human? What does that mean? If it is not our mind that makes us human, it has to be our physical self that makes us human correct?

[juderodney]

Just remember, people. AI's would be created for a purpose. They are given a role to fulfill, not a life lead on its own.

[marharth]

Just remember, people. AI's would be created for a purpose. They are given a role to fulfill, not a life lead on its own.

True, which is the problem with it in the first place. Its just a hypothetical situation.

[HeyYou]

Speaking of Sci-Fi movies, and dealing with AI...... Consider also, SkyNet, from the terminator series of movies....... It wasn't designed to be self-aware.... but it sure got that way anyway.

[draconix]

Just remember, people. AI's would be created for a purpose. They are given a role to fulfill, not a life lead on its own.

 

That's irrelevant. If your mom and dad had you in order to have their son become the president of the US, that doesn't mean that you want to become the president, nor that you have to by any means. We're talking about a sentient AI, not a rogue ebay application.