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

[Ghogiel]

 

 

 

 

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.

[Aurielius]

 

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.

[marharth]

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.

Dolphins are intelligent, not nearly as intelligent as humans or AI.

 

If you think the machines will evolve faster, and they have no chance of benevolence (which is false, but okay) then why do you want to oppress them? Oppressing them will make them hate us less?

 

You're a machine. You are a machine made out of flesh. You are still a machine. Why does it matter what the machine is made out of?

 

Maybe you are forgetting this topic was made under the assumption the AI had a similar mind to humans. Something of a metal brain.

 

Also, there is a difference between superior culture and superior firepower.

[kvnchrist]

 

 

 

 

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.

[Ghogiel]

 

 

 

 

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.

I am not an optimist idealist. I am not a paranoid xenophobe either. I reserve judgement until a time judgement is warranted.

[Aurielius]

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:

Edited October 3, 2011 by Aurielius

[marharth]

Maybe you didn't know, but a debate is not you presenting your argument and expecting others to follow along.

 

If someone disagrees they will challenge you. Respond to the challenge if you want to be a part of it.

 

If this was just for discussions it could be put in off topic, it is a debate. We have both presented our arguments and you have yet to respond to quite a few things made by other members and myself.

 

I am sorry if you want to drop out, but don't try putting the blame on other people.

 

Also a lot of people have changed sides in this topic. Someone completely switched sides.

Edited October 3, 2011 by marharth

[Ghogiel]

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:

After being so adamant that there is no evidence that certain humans contains Neanderthal DNA. Even when presented with credible evidence, you're still bitter. You are not one to talk.

[Aurielius]

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:

After being so adamant that there is no evidence that certain humans contains Neanderthal DNA. Even when presented with credible evidence, you're still bitter. You are not one to talk.

I thank both of you for proving my point.......even in a digression you need to be right and not concede anything .......enjoy it.

[Ghogiel]

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:

After being so adamant that there is no evidence that certain humans contains Neanderthal DNA. Even when presented with credible evidence, you're still bitter. You are not one to talk.

I thank both of you for proving my point.......even in a digression you need to be right and not concede anything .......enjoy it.

Concede what? It was your chance not mine.