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

[hoofhearted4]

=And yes, we can decide now even if they are not created yet. Just because they have not been created and may never be does not mean you can't make a argument for or against it. So please don't post something like "well we don't know yet, so whatever."

 

actually before i read your post, this was the first thing that popped into my head. until a case is presented where the question would be put up for prosecution, i really couldnt answer it. my default answer is No. but i really dont know

 

i assume that if we created and AI it would still be a computer and therefor would feel whatever we told it to feel. only when we create an adapting, self thinking, learning, human AI, would something like this be an issue. dont forsee it in my lifetime so ive never put much thought into it, so still my answer is No.

 

 

but we've all seen the Matrix. do we really wanna have that happen? the answer is No, unless i get to be Neo.

Edited September 28, 2011 by hoofhearted4

[JimboUK]

The time when machines have evolved to such a degree that they have wants, desires and needs is the time we should take a hammer to them. I quite like being the dominant species on the planet and see no good reason to hand that over to anything else. Anyway Artificial Intelligence is just that...artificial, any wants, desires or wishes for rights could be removed with a firmware upgrade.

[draconix]

What are humans? Nothing but cells, a life-support system and vehicle for the brain, which is essentially an organic computer that happens to be prone to miscalculation. AI would presumably be an inorganic machine, but I don't think that this distinction should deprive those machines of rights. And what if the machine we created was organic? What if the first AI we created was a human clone? Does it lose it's rights as a human because we created it?

 

Here's another way of looking at it... If we were created by someone or something else, does that mean that we wouldn't have rights?

[Nintii]

What are humans? Nothing but cells, a life-support system and vehicle for the brain, which is essentially an organic computer that happens to be prone to miscalculation. AI would presumably be an inorganic machine, but I don't think that this distinction should deprive those machines of rights. And what if the machine we created was organic? What if the first AI we created was a human clone? Does it lose it's rights as a human because we created it?

 

Here's another way of looking at it... If we were created by someone or something else, does that mean that we wouldn't have rights?

 

I find your description of yourself quite amusing ... there is no draconix only bits of this and that ... until those bits start displaying the odd behavior of a personality ... which isn't consistant with "nothing but cells, a life support system and vehicle for the brain which is essentially an organic computer that happens to be prone to miscalculation" ... because now it sounds like a "someone" not a something.

 

But wait, there's more - now I sound like an infomercial - "if we were created by someone or something else, does that mean that we wouldn't have rights ?" ... you do have rights ... the right to CHOOSE your destiny.

 

My toaster does what it's told, because no matter how intelligent it is, it isn't "aware" ... programming to think that you are aware doesn't make you anymore aware than sleeping in McDonalds makes you a burger.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Nintii

[Balagor]

>snip<

Here's another way of looking at it... If we were created by someone or something else, does that mean that we wouldn't have rights?

To answer that I would break the Nexus rules, and we don´t want the topic closed, do we?

[draconix]

I find your description of yourself quite amusing ... there is no draconix only bits of this and that ... until those bits start displaying the odd behavior of a personality ... which isn't consistant with "nothing but cells, a life support system and vehicle for the brain which is essentially an organic computer that happens to be prone to miscalculation" ... because now it sounds like a "someone" not a something.

 

But wait, there's more - now I sound like an infomercial - "if we were created by someone or something else, does that mean that we wouldn't have rights ?" ... you do have rights ... the right to CHOOSE your destiny.

 

My toaster does what it's told, because no matter how intelligent it is, it isn't "aware" ... programming to think that you are aware doesn't make you anymore aware than sleeping in McDonalds makes you a burger.

 

It's kind of hard to follow what you're trying to say there. I think I'm picking up a straw-man argument with a hint of mockery on the side? Your post has a complete lack of an actual argument. Your toaster doesn't have the intelligence of a human being, and the discussion only pertains to theoretic AI that has the proven intelligence of a human. And good luck telling said AI what to do. It takes less than human intelligence to understand the concept of challenging authority.

 

It also sounds like you disbelieve in the notion that AI can become actually self-aware. That is probably where you and I come to an impasse. But that's fine, I firmly believe that we will see Technological Singularity within our lifetime, and at that time you will know that you were wrong. :thumbsup:

 

To answer that I would break the Nexus rules, and we don´t want the topic closed, do we?

I suppose we could break site rules by answering that in a way that we might choose to, but that's entirely on ourselves, isn't it? We didn't ask anything about religion, we only asked you to engage in a thought experiment, but we guess some people can't understand the difference.

Edited September 28, 2011 by draconix

[crimsonblade1]

Yeah the AI should get free healthcare, unemployment for life and food stamps if it actually eats anything....

[hoofhearted4]

>snip<

Here's another way of looking at it... If we were created by someone or something else, does that mean that we wouldn't have rights?

To answer that I would break the Nexus rules, and we don´t want the topic closed, do we?

 

honestly my first reaction to that comment was what if an ET life created us.

[Ghogiel]

What if the first AI we created was a human clone? Does it lose it's rights as a human because we created it?

 

Well a human clone wouldn't be AI as far as I am concerned. It would for all intents and purposes be a human at the end of the day.

 

If it was grown in an actual persons womb, it maybe considered artificially created, but only in the same vein as IVF. The difference would be that the DNA used to grow the embryo in cloning would just be a sequence that someone else had already used, where as the one in regular IVF is a new one. Both are impossible without a lot of prodding.

 

AI might be an organic system, but would have to be a completely unique 'lifeform'. A clone of a human wouldn't satisfy my criteria. A organic thinking computer, or at least partially, might probably be the way to go actually, how nature does is the obvious inspiration.

[marharth]

To get this clear, people think that AI should not be treated equal based on their flesh, organs, and other things besides their mind? That sounds a bit familiar :whistling:

 

Also people have said that since we are their creator, we should control them. What if a alien race came down and proved that they created us? Should we agree to slavery?

 

 

Someone else also said that because they are not the same species, we should not treat them the same. That is a fair point, but they would still have the same mind in the form of a mechanical mind. Maybe they should be outlawed from taking place in the human Olympics, and other sporting events since it would be a unfair advantage.

 

Also to be clear again, this is not a AI that has programming to be made aware. This is a AI that fully learns on its own, and operates as a human in every single possible way.

 

If I missed something, tell me.