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

[HeyYou]

My point was, The Federation doesn't do the death penalty. They have penal colonies, and rehab centers..... did Lor get either one of those? Nope. Summary disassembly.

[Aurielius]

My point was, The Federation doesn't do the death penalty. They have penal colonies, and rehab centers..... did Lor get either one of those? Nope. Summary disassembly.

Is this a philosophical discussion or Trekkie convention? Cause if it is the latter, I invoke General Order 24. :whistling:

Edited October 2, 2011 by Aurielius

[kvnchrist]

When I think of AI, I think of two versions. one that is connected to a central authority, like in the Mextrix or autonomous, like Data on Star Trek.

 

As I remember Data had his personality and intellect installed onto his neural network, which to me is having it installed, like a software update. If this is true aren't their identities dependent upon another living sole. If this is true, then are these actually individuals or are they mimics?

 

Also, these beings must come into being, somehow. I doubt very seriously if these beings could be formed the same way as human beings are. If they are manufactured, how are their parts tested if as you've said, they have no off switch. I know that Data had a off switch, why should these beings be any different.

 

a lot of what you said here I addressed in my last post.

 

Usually when we consider whether something deserves certain rights we consider person hood and whether that being has things like intelligence, self awareness, consciousness or other mental attributes. What we do not consider is whether the being evolved from some other life form, is biological in nature, had parents, etc. The focus is not on where it came from, but what it can do. So why is it so important to you to point out the difference in how an A.I. comes into existence from how humans came into existence? So long as the end result is the same, why does it matter?

 

 

It matters, because people think of these when they decide wither any entity is equal to them and thus deserves the same rights as they have. It is the differences that people see more clearly than the similarities. As in Data, It was his eyes that stood out. This is true of children and I really don't think it changes much as we mature, unless we focus on changing it, in ourselves. As a child were you more willing to eat a cheeseburger or a piece of brockley? You were most likely to eat what you knew, than try something strange and different.

 

The whole thread is about acceptance. The closer and more familiar anything is, the more comfortable you are with it. We are dealing with human nature here. Giving anything equal treatment (rights) is the highest form of acceptance.

[kvnchrist]

My point was, The Federation doesn't do the death penalty. They have penal colonies, and rehab centers..... did Lor get either one of those? Nope. Summary disassembly.

 

 

Yea, but they have these people in red shirts that seem, always to get taken out, like cannon fodder. lol

[marharth]

Once again, this topic is about a single type of AI.

 

More like the matrix AI, where it evolved and learned on its own.

[draconix]

My point was, The Federation doesn't do the death penalty. They have penal colonies, and rehab centers..... did Lor get either one of those? Nope. Summary disassembly.

 

In that case I might recommend writing the writers of that episode to confront them about their philosophic inconsistency. Perhaps to them, disassembly does not mean death. Perhaps they put his hard drive on a shelf for a few thousand years as penitence? Regardless of the TV show, you can rest assured that if humans can punish a murderous AI, they will. Giving an AI rights does not give it free reign over humanity...

 

...So I suppose another interesting question is -- what rights would even interest an AI? If that AI had full control over it's own facilities, and if it's goal was to be efficient as possible, why would it not just simulate it's own universe "mentally" with more free will than even a human? Presumably such a simulation could be as real as the physical universe, considering it's all just electrical impulses. The only true connection to the physical universe an AI would require is a power source... And Solar could ween them off of dependance upon human infrastructure altogether.

 

...I'm boggling my own mind right now. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/laugh.gif

[draconix]

...Maybe we are all just the simulation of an AI so advanced that it can simulate people with an actual sense of self? We have no way of knowing. :-O

[kvnchrist]

My point was, The Federation doesn't do the death penalty. They have penal colonies, and rehab centers..... did Lor get either one of those? Nope. Summary disassembly.

 

In that case I might recommend writing the writers of that episode to confront them about their philosophic inconsistency. Perhaps to them, disassembly does not mean death. Perhaps they put his hard drive on a shelf for a few thousand years as penitence? Regardless of the TV show, you can rest assured that if humans can punish a murderous AI, they will. Giving an AI rights does not give it free reign over humanity...

 

...So I suppose another interesting question is -- what rights would even interest an AI? If that AI had full control over it's own facilities, and if it's goal was to be efficient as possible, why would it not just simulate it's own universe "mentally" with more free will than even a human? Presumably such a simulation could be as real as the physical universe, considering it's all just electrical impulses. The only true connection to the physical universe an AI would require is a power source... And Solar could ween them off of dependance upon human infrastructure altogether.

 

...I'm boggling my own mind right now. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/laugh.gif

 

 

You bring up a good point. Why would these beings even need us, our acceptance or even our companionship. The only thing that brought Data so much attention was his desire to experience everything human. With our pettiness and limited lifespan, what really would we have to offer them.

[stars2heaven]

When I think of AI, I think of two versions. one that is connected to a central authority, like in the Mextrix or autonomous, like Data on Star Trek.

 

As I remember Data had his personality and intellect installed onto his neural network, which to me is having it installed, like a software update. If this is true aren't their identities dependent upon another living sole. If this is true, then are these actually individuals or are they mimics?

 

Also, these beings must come into being, somehow. I doubt very seriously if these beings could be formed the same way as human beings are. If they are manufactured, how are their parts tested if as you've said, they have no off switch. I know that Data had a off switch, why should these beings be any different.

 

a lot of what you said here I addressed in my last post.

 

Usually when we consider whether something deserves certain rights we consider person hood and whether that being has things like intelligence, self awareness, consciousness or other mental attributes. What we do not consider is whether the being evolved from some other life form, is biological in nature, had parents, etc. The focus is not on where it came from, but what it can do. So why is it so important to you to point out the difference in how an A.I. comes into existence from how humans came into existence? So long as the end result is the same, why does it matter?

 

 

It matters, because people think of these when they decide wither any entity is equal to them and thus deserves the same rights as they have. It is the differences that people see more clearly than the similarities. As in Data, It was his eyes that stood out. This is true of children and I really don't think it changes much as we mature, unless we focus on changing it, in ourselves. As a child were you more willing to eat a cheeseburger or a piece of brockley? You were most likely to eat what you knew, than try something strange and different.

 

The whole thread is about acceptance. The closer and more familiar anything is, the more comfortable you are with it. We are dealing with human nature here. Giving anything equal treatment (rights) is the highest form of acceptance.

 

Granting what you say here as true, does it seem acceptable to you that we would deny this entity rights simply because of the differences in how it came to exist? That seems like an awfully unethical position to hold. Granting another person rights based on human nature or what one perceives to be familiar or unfamiliar is the crux of an irrational prejudice. It would seem to suggest that there is superiority in human existence, despite evidence to the contrary.

[HeyYou]

It's human nature to be irrational. Is racial prejudice rational? Is blindly applying stereotypes rational? Are emotions rational? Sure, we have the ABILITY to BE rational, but, that does not necessarily imply that we ALWAYS (or, in some case, even "mostly") are. In fact, you can find far more examples of IRRATIONAL behavior, than you can rational. Humans, for the most part, will first see "its a machine". It will have the same value to them as their toaster, or car, or some unknown employee, depending on what purpose it serves to them. Basically, they will be relegated to the ranks of second (third?) class citizens. For lack of a better term, odds are, they won't get citizenship either, as they weren't "born" at all. Of course, time requirements aside, any decent AI could learn the requisite material, and pass any knowledge tests for citizenship in a few short minutes. Would they be given that opportunity though? And what good is the 'word' of something (someone?) that places zero value on their honor, or what some other species thinks of them? Do you really care what the neighbors dog thinks of you? Does the neighbors dog care what you think of Him??