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

[marharth]

I will admit up front I have not been following this thread and have only briefly perused some of the posts. But my take on the OP's original question is this. "Artificial" Intelligence is artificial. Science "Fiction" is fiction. Science "Fantasy" is fantasy. Many of us, I include myself, enjoy the concept of Artificial Intelligence, and we know that robotics have a place in this world, particularly in the worlds of science and medicine. However, for me I think it is a bit ridiculous to contemplate the bestowing of rights on artificially created entities.

The reason its called artificial is because it is created by man. It is not really artificial.

 

AI is still created by nature. Man is not separate from nature.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Are you sure? By that definition I can't think of anything that is artificial.

 

If you don't think an AI should have rights, how would you feel if you were one?

[Aurielius]

Are you sure? By that definition I can't think of anything that is artificial.

 

If you don't think an AI should have rights, how would you feel if you were one?

I think you are missing an essential point, AI's are programmed and can be anything we choose to program them to be. I don't care how smart my coffee maker is or becomes..it's a coffee maker not a sentient individual. Though some would like to blur the line between biological and mechanical there is a difference, sentience is more than a collection of parts however cleverly assembled, elucidation of that point would stray into forum forbidden territory. The day my PC decides it's my equal is the day I introduce it to it's cousin the wood chipper.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Aurielius

[Quetzlsacatanango]

That's one view. I would say that, given in the OP that the item is as intelligent as a human in every way, a human would have no idea at that point how it works.

Whether biology is or isn't just a really complex mechanism, I have no idea.

But if your machine were to take on a complexity to the point where it is as intelligent as you, you would have a pretty hard time coming up with a definition of sentience that describes you but not it.

[marharth]

I think you are missing an essential point, AI's are programmed and can be anything we choose to program them to be. I don't care how smart my coffee maker is or becomes..it's a coffee maker not a sentient individual. Though some would like to blur the line between biological and mechanical there is a difference, sentience is more than a collection of parts however cleverly assembled, elucidation of that point would stray into forum forbidden territory. The day my PC decides it's my equal is the day I introduce it to it's cousin the wood chipper.

Did you read the first post?

 

I made it clear I am not talking about programed machines.

[grannywils]

His machine could never take on the complex intelligence of a human being without the human being enabling it to. The definition of sentience, in fact the word sentience was created and defined by a human being. The machine has no way of understanding or recognizing it without the input of the human being. No matter how you look at it or describe it or define it, the "machine" with the AI, can be "turned off" or sent to the wood chipper as so aptly put by my friend Aurielius.

[marharth]

His machine could never take on the complex intelligence of a human being without the human being enabling it to. The definition of sentience, in fact the word sentience was created and defined by a human being. The machine has no way of understanding or recognizing it without the input of the human being. No matter how you look at it or describe it or define it, the "machine" with the AI, can be "turned off" or sent to the wood chipper as so aptly put by my friend Aurielius.

Yes, and humans can be sent to the wood chipper too.

 

Humans are creating it, so obviously they are the ones enabling it. What is your point?

[Quetzlsacatanango]

His machine could never take on the complex intelligence of a human being without the human being enabling it to. The definition of sentience, in fact the word sentience was created and defined by a human being. The machine has no way of understanding or recognizing it without the input of the human being. No matter how you look at it or describe it or define it, the "machine" with the AI, can be "turned off" or sent to the wood chipper as so aptly put by my friend Aurielius.

 

We don't know how the first intelligent human had his "switch" turned on, so you can't state categorically that a sufficiently complex machine could not do the same thing spontaneously.

[grannywils]

Quetzlsacatanango said: We don't know how the first intelligent human had his "switch" turned on, so you can't state categorically that a sufficiently complex machine could not do the same thing spontaneously.

 

Actually I can state anything that I wish to categorically. However, in reality, in this instance I was simply attempting to give my opinion. I have given it. We seem to be wandering a bit off topic at this point. The question I answered was whether or not I believed we should give equal rights to AI if it was created. I voted, no, and now I am finished with this particular thread.

[kvnchrist]

Which switch turns me off. We can dream and contemplate things we would like to do. It is what this topic is about. You are talking about a mechanism here. Not a human being.

 

I praise you for you compassion for other things. You bring up some interesting ideas, but the fact that their is a difference between living organisms and machines can't be discounted. If you had the choice between saving your cat or dog and saving an AI robot, which would you do?

 

Would it be any different between saving a human being and one of your animals. I think the humans would win out before your animals and the animals would win out before the robot. To have equal rights, they have to be equal, and they aren't anything even close. That's what I'm saying.

An AI could dream and contemplate things it would like to do as well. An AI does not have to have a off switch. Human begins are mechanisms. Not metal ones, but they are mechanisms.

 

Living organisms are flesh and blood. Why does flesh and blood matter so much over what the mind is?

 

A AI with a mind exactly the same as a human is not equal? In what world? Just because it is made out of different materiel or because it looks different does not mean it should be denied equal rights.

 

You can imagine these AI constructs will be able to do as much as you want, to paint them as close to human as you wish. The idea that a construct has no off switch is ludicrous. Every mechanism known to man, and all those of science fiction, which is all you really have to go with, have had off switches. Flesh and blood matter, because they are human and humanity is what brings we as humans together.

 

I like how you simply ignored me point about saving or rescuing people. Are you telling me that you would not chose to save a human beings life over saving an AI construct, if not saving the construct would result in the total destruction of the construct. It is the height of humanity to care for each other. To see another person as important. I know there are people out there that wouldn't lift a finger to help anuone, but I am confident you would do what you could. Which would you choose and why?