stars2heaven Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Lets take your logic all the way down the road. We create the AI, we enfranchise the AI to be equal then the AI evolves far past us to the point that is comparable to humans to chimpanzees. Just how willing do you think the AI's will be to grant you equal rights? There is this naive assumption of the supposed morality of the AI's that has no basis other than wishful thinking. All equal rights adherents seem quite willing to grant coequal status to a MACHINE , if we were talking about granting Dolphins equal rights that at least would be assigning rights to a proven socially benign species that we could coexist with. Fortunately mankind has shown a predilection for remaining at the apex of the planetary species pyramid so this is so much youthful idealism not a pragmatic view of how we operate as a species. I don't know what point you are trying to make about dolphins. Also, how we tend to operate as a species is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is what we ought to do in this hypothetical situation. What we ought to do for dolphins is not relevant to what we ought to do for a machine. Nor is the possible social impacts that might occur if the AI were to become more intelligent and more mentally adept than us.Dolphins are an intelligent species how intelligent is yet to be properly ascertained. The social impact is not relevant? Suggest you review what happens when a superior culture interacts with one less so, the North and South American indigenous Indians might be good starting point. That machines evolve faster than biological life is already in evidence and that you are complacently accepting them as possible equals shows that your species survival strategic thinking will be woefully behind a crisis when it arrives. The adherents of equality blithely assume the benevolence of AI's is almost laughable if it were not so naive, the road to hell is paved with good intentions but that will be of little solace to humanity when we arrive there. The fact is that a machine of any type is not a life form nor will be. The point is that how one behaves is not relevant to how one ought to behave. Unless you are trying to make the argument that we should not extend equal treatment to a machine because of a potential threat that it may pose to us, then discussing how it may act or how we may act towards it is not relevant. Also, I don't think it's necessary to discuss whether a machine is alive or not unless you think that that is a necessary component for acquiring certain rights. Is that what you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stars2heaven Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I think it should be painfully evident that a thing which is not human is not equal to a human in terms of the parts which compose it. So I hope that we are on the same page when discussing equality in terms of how one ought to be treated when compared to another thing and not just playing a game of semantics. If what you mean is the former, then there is no debate to be had between us and you can disregard the following. As far as treatment of any sentient being, I think any entity needs to be treated ethically and appropriately. Animals domestic or not. Spiders, snakes and the like. These AI entities deserve to be treated according to their capabilities. As far as equal rights, That is something sacred to me. Not religiously so, but socially. When I think of equal rights, I think of inequality between the races, not between a machine and a man.Same as me, except I put no such definitive reservation on what type of being can earn equality. If it only seemed appropriate and mutual, I don't see why it is totally to be ruled out. That is easily said so far away from these beings ever coming to being. I've known many who have preconceived ideas going into a situation that they have had to extract themselves from. Most say, "They didn't know!" Well of course they didn't know and neither do you. I was an optimistic Idealist, myself, until I found out how human I was. Things change, my friend once reality strikes. You didn't really do much for furthering the conversation. You remain vague at this point as to whether you think an A.I. deserves equal treatment to that of a human. You said it should be treated appropriately according to its capabilities, but what is your idea of being treated appropriately? What sort of treatment does this entity deserve compared to a normal human being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stars2heaven Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) This 'debate' if such a misnomer can be used, has followed the 'usual suspects' rule of thumb, neither side has moved the other one iota. The usual suspects line up in their respective corners and the concept of conceding even a minor point by some I about as likely as the Ice Capades in Hell, even digressions are defended with zealotry that borders on the absurd. I believe that Einstein once said that "Stupidity was repeating same same experiment over and over expecting an alternate result", I must concur with his wisdom in that respect. I believe that my 'esteemed' opponents are wrong but have zero faith in moving their fixed opinions through dialog, so I bow out of this totally fruitless exercise. :wallbash: I disagree entirely. I see progress being made already. Hell, this debate hasn't even gone fully beyond the stage of clarifying exactly what both sides actually mean yet. Apply reason, and truth will follow shortly behind. Edited October 3, 2011 by stars2heaven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frakle Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 No. Would you give equal rights to a talking Elmo toy? It's the same principle. It's not alive, it doesn't have feelings. It's a robot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormcrown Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 This would, in our world, become a religious debate as well as a moral one. Those who are religious would say that because AI was not created by God, then they are not entitled to the same rights. They would be below animals on the totem pole. They are simply a creation of man, like a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 @frakle Re-read the premise of the first post of the thread. There is nothing intelligent about an elmo toy, artificial or otherwise. @stormcrownThat might be true, but we should try to avoid this topic's closure by not mentioning that kind of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stars2heaven Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 No. Would you give equal rights to a talking Elmo toy? It's the same principle. It's not alive, it doesn't have feelings. It's a robot. A talking Elmo toy does not have the same mental capabilities as a human. If it did, why would it matter that it is a robot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukertin Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) The only way for an AI to die would be for a human to kill it, and even then, that would not guarantee death. As it stands, no immortal entity should be treated the same as a human, it should not be treated like a human, it should not be equal to a human before the law. Whether this means it should be given sub-human or super-human privilege is up to debate, but treating an immortal entity under the same rules that we have envisaged and used as mortals would be complete and utter fail. Honestly K...I think your question was more argumentative than debate stirring...and could lead down the religion road where there is a bunny with great, big teeth. I don't believe in artificial creation of life How do you not believe in something that has actually happened, and is well documented?http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2010-05-21-genome21_ST_N.htmMan creates a unique bacterium.Bacterium reproduces.Man has artificially created life. Edited October 4, 2011 by lukertin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedVexHK Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Hmm.. AI equal to Humans...... I'd say no... AI would surpass Humans,I'd be more worried of the question would Humans have the same rights as AI's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 The only way for an AI to die would be for a human to kill it, and even then, that would not guarantee death. As it stands, no immortal entity should be treated the same as a human, it should not be treated like a human, it should not be equal to a human before the law. Whether this means it should be given sub-human or super-human privilege is up to debate, but treating an immortal entity under the same rules that we have envisaged and used as mortals would be complete and utter fail. Honestly K...I think your question was more argumentative than debate stirring...and could lead down the religion road where there is a bunny with great, big teeth. I don't believe in artificial creation of life How do you not believe in something that has actually happened, and is well documented?http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2010-05-21-genome21_ST_N.htmMan creates a unique bacterium.Bacterium reproduces.Man has artificially created life. You can stick a 9 volt battery in a can of Campbell's soup and call it life all you want to. It is still not life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now