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

[Aurielius]

"Probably not. Some researchers had hypothesised that some human genes, including one involved in brain development, originated from interbreeding with Neanderthals, but Pääbo's team found no evidence for this. In fact, no Neanderthal DNA sequences are consistently found in humans. "Each person has a different bit of Neanderthal in them," says Reich."

 

In your reference article this is as close as you get to proof....it's miles away from fact, it's supposition still. Nice try..no cigar.

We are digressing however....

Reread it. :thumbsup:

It's hypothesis not scientific proof..you reread it. :down:

[Ghogiel]

"Probably not. Some researchers had hypothesised that some human genes, including one involved in brain development, originated from interbreeding with Neanderthals, but Pääbo's team found no evidence for this. In fact, no Neanderthal DNA sequences are consistently found in humans. "Each person has a different bit of Neanderthal in them," says Reich."

 

In your reference article this is as close as you get to proof....it's miles away from fact, it's supposition still. Nice try..no cigar.

We are digressing however....

Reread it. :thumbsup:

It's hypothesis not scientific proof..you reread it. :down:

It's current theory. :thumbsup:

[kvnchrist]

Oh so there are stipulations on creation, procreation doesn't count. Disregarding the organic connotation, procreation, or reproduction if you will, could certainly be a viable method of creating an AI. AI could create other AI.

 

As I've stated before. AI has not been created yet. Everything said about it, pro or con are just assumptions. Yes, there is a difference between procreation and creating objects with your hands. I thought that would be obvious. My question stands. When has my statement ever not been true.

A simplistic robot could be, and probably has been programmed to manufacture a more complex machine. I suppose that doesn't count either because the simplistic robot would be made by us.

Programed by who. Other machines or man. Can machines create humans. That would really make us equal.

[Aurielius]

"Probably not. Some researchers had hypothesised that some human genes, including one involved in brain development, originated from interbreeding with Neanderthals, but Pääbo's team found no evidence for this. In fact, no Neanderthal DNA sequences are consistently found in humans. "Each person has a different bit of Neanderthal in them," says Reich."

 

In your reference article this is as close as you get to proof....it's miles away from fact, it's supposition still. Nice try..no cigar.

We are digressing however....

Reread it. :thumbsup:

It's hypothesis not scientific proof..you reread it. :down:

It's current theory. :thumbsup:

Oh... so theory equals fact? In your own words that's logical hot air.

[Ghogiel]

Oh so there are stipulations on creation, procreation doesn't count. Disregarding the organic connotation, procreation, or reproduction if you will, could certainly be a viable method of creating an AI. AI could create other AI.

 

As I've stated before. AI has not been created yet. Everything said about it, pro or con are just assumptions. Yes, there is a difference between procreation and creating objects with your hands. I thought that would be obvious. My question stands. When has my statement ever not been true.

A simplistic robot could be, and probably has been programmed to manufacture a more complex machine. I suppose that doesn't count either because the simplistic robot would be made by us.

Programed by who. Other machines or man.

Perhaps other machines. Or man. Aliens whatever. Just depends how far back up the creation ladder you want to go. We could go to the creation of the universe if we wanted.

 

@Aurielius If you can do better go for it.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Aurielius]

@ghogiel

I don't need to, I never made the assertion of fact, you did. Whatever way you would like to twist in the wind, it still does not amount to proof.

Lisnpuuppy said she had some, that I will wait upon, but with yours..no.

[kvnchrist]

Oh so there are stipulations on creation, procreation doesn't count. Disregarding the organic connotation, procreation, or reproduction if you will, could certainly be a viable method of creating an AI. AI could create other AI.

 

As I've stated before. AI has not been created yet. Everything said about it, pro or con are just assumptions. Yes, there is a difference between procreation and creating objects with your hands. I thought that would be obvious. My question stands. When has my statement ever not been true.

A simplistic robot could be, and probably has been programmed to manufacture a more complex machine. I suppose that doesn't count either because the simplistic robot would be made by us.

Programed by who. Other machines or man.

Perhaps other machines. Or man. Aliens whatever. Just depends how far back up the creation ladder you want to go. We could go to the creation of the universe if we wanted.

 

 

 

Dude, I respect you and your opinions, but I think you are reaching here.

[Ghogiel]

@ghogiel

I don't need to, I never made the assertion of fact, you did. Whatever way you would like to twist in the wind, it still does not amount to proof.

Lisnpuuppy said she had some, that I will wait upon, but with yours..no.

Apparently it is fact non Africans contain some percent of the Neanderthal genome and is backed up by scientific data. If you think the findings are false. Oh well.

 

@kvnchrist I certainly am. Since procreation is not valid and on the table, Other less complex things creating other more complex things are also invalid because they were originally created by more complex things at some point down a chain of creation, and you have been moving the borders of what your seemingly simple statement means, there is nothing left at the end.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Lisnpuppy]

@ghogiel

I don't need to, I never made the assertion of fact, you did. Whatever way you would like to twist in the wind, it still does not amount to proof.

Lisnpuuppy said she had some, that I will wait upon, but with yours..no.

 

This is painfully off-topic and I apologize to the OP. This is a good article but if anyone needs further info please PM me and go back to the topic at hand, please?

 

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html

 

 

Researchers compared the Neanderthal genome with the genomes of five living people: one San from southern Africa, one Yoruba from West Africa, one Papua New Guinean, one Han Chinese and one French person. Scientists discovered that 1% to 4% of the latter three DNA samples is shared with Neanderthals — proof that Neanderthals and early modern humans interbred. The absence of Neanderthal DNA in the genomes of the two present-day Africans indicates that interbreeding occurred after some root population of early modern humans left Africa but before the species evolved into distinct groups in Europe and Asia

 

 

[marharth]

Why couldn't machines create humans?

 

What would stop a advanced AI from creating a human exactly?

 

If the AI fully understood the brain and all of our biology, they could artificially grow organs and create a human.