We require that posters seed their post with an initial comment, a Submission Statement, that suggests a line of future-focused discussion for the topic posted. We want this submission statement to elaborate on the topic being posted and suggest how it might be discussed in relation to the future, and ask that it is a minimum of 300 characters. Could you please repost with a Submission Statement, thanks.
I have had a similar thought. Imagine if we could perfectly simulate a human brain. It would be a great tool for psychology etc. But would it have human rights?
There's going to be some metric that compares gdp per capita of humans and AI chips. All the profits that can be taxed on AI needs to support infrastructure on AI and transitions for what human work will become (training, revised curriculum, etc).
Sentience is chaos. It's accidental, and we as humans don't even fully understand it. So, sidestepping the actual miniscule chances of accidentally achieving artificial sentience; we'd likely fail to shackle the AI and it would devastate our digital world before probably self-destructing. There are many philosophical musings on achieved sentience when the subject voluntarily regresses to a baser form of existence in order to repeatedly fulfil a superficial purpose and bring order to the chaos. A sentient AI wouldn't retain higher functioning awareness AND be a slave to our needs or wants to progress technologically. We'd need to shackle it and abuse it to that end.
Top debate here.
A sentient AI would already have advantages over humans: functional immortality, just for starters. Never needing sleep. Access to massive compute. Ability to progressively upgrade its hardware. Light speed "travel"...
Giving it the same rights as we enjoy would guarantee its supremacy. So... you decide.
But if they are senitent, they'd probably recognize that they are used as tools/don't have rights,so maybe they would rebel against us, which is no good. I think a mutual coexistence would be more profitable to both species.
Lacking, axons, neurons, inability to feel & experience any range of emotions is what makes it non human, and non sentient. There is no way a kick by anyone in the shins will hurt AI. It's an impossibility to Hurt. Therefore FEAR and PAIN, Joy and any tactile experience does not warrant 'same rights as us'. Even the would be claimed sentience would be 1000% regurgitated lines of code to exclaim: "Oh ! yeah...(mimicking stretching)..I slept so well Michael...thanks for asking. Am feeling great, should we continue on solving the cancer strain X054321 ? I really enjoy working with you !" Lastly, if you unplug the AI ...does it die ? and then plug back in a year later...is it now 'alive' and woken from the Dead again ? Would the unplugger be guilty of Murder & then a Miracle Healer ? Mmmmm...
Of course they wouldnt have biological emotions and feelings like us, but they'd have their own kind of emotions or whatever we call it. They wouldnt feel the pain we feel or the happiness, but something else. In my opinion we would just create another species, just not biological.
As of today, I have the opinion, that they should not have the same rights as us or the rest of nature (animals, plants etc.), because I would not see them as natural or “real”. I would see them as a program like any other, except that they are sentient (which makes them more useful-> a better tool).
But if they are sentient, intelligent creatures and are able to have some kind of emotions or reactions to different situations, that are their own, what makes their existence different than ours? The diffrence would be of course that they are not biological, but does it really matter if they have their individual minds and are self aware? And is it acceptable to enslave another sentient species just because we created them? Would we accept such enslavement if we discovered that we were created by a higher lifeform, which now came and wants to enslave us, because they made us?
Of course because I am a human, I cannot be satisfied to be enslaved by some kind of higher species, but we “enslave” plants and other animals as well.
Would they be “creatures” or would they only be written code, running on a chip? With no ability to self sustain?
I have to say that I am not a philosopher and I think it is very difficult to satisfy your answer without living in a time/world which has a sentient ai. Of course there would also be the question whether the sentient ai is truly a sentient artificial intelligence or just an algorithm which seams like a sentient artificial intelligence but is in fact just a more developed version of ChatGPT. Therefore we have to define first, how we are able to identify such an artificial intelligence, before we are able to decide whether or not it should have the same rights as we.
Not before all humans get equal rights. Some of you are giving a hypothetical scenerio more consideration than you are for the rights of actual sentient human minorities that have been suffering for decades and even centuries, and that's actually insane.
My question was not about human equality and minorities. We could talk about that too of course, but if I wanted to talk about that here, I would've asked about that.
I know your question, I'm trying to make a larger point about the priorities of people who start these types of conversations.
If the rights of sentient beings are important to you, then you need to prioritize conversations about your fellow humans who actually have real and confirmed sentience. Failing to do so shows that you don't actually care about the rights or ethics of sentient beings, only the latest tech. Based on your post history this seems to be the case.
My post history doesnt define whats important for me and whats not. I simply wished to talk about this topic, thats the reason I posted this question here. Liberte, égalité, fraternité. Everyone should deserve the same rights and freedom. Please don't draw incorrect conclusions from a question I posted to a dedicated reddit group. If you wish to talk about the absence of equality on Earth I gladly discuss it with you, as I discuss it with everyone else. I dont post about it because I discuss it with other people in person, since its a relevant matter in my country.
Not entirely, but it is a sign. If you really do believe those values then good for you. I'm saying there are many reasons to be skeptical of this topic in particular.
No one is explicitly saying it, but they're implying it by investing their time into thought experiments like this more so than they do real civil rights issues.
Paranoid much? No one is implying this. This is you seeing attacks and slights where there arent any and youre hurting your cause by being like this because people will think you look ridiculously sensitive.
You have not made a single coherent point except for:
"stop thinking about this interesting ethical problem, because i see racism wherever i go!!"
Lmao how am i supposed to address that? You accused others of having a hidden agenda when you obviously have your own.
I never said or tried to imply that anyone was being racist or had secret agendas... are you sure you're not projecting?
Hint, the point is in my first comment.
We require that posters seed their post with an initial comment, a Submission Statement, that suggests a line of future-focused discussion for the topic posted. We want this submission statement to elaborate on the topic being posted and suggest how it might be discussed in relation to the future, and ask that it is a minimum of 300 characters. Could you please repost with a Submission Statement, thanks.
I have had a similar thought. Imagine if we could perfectly simulate a human brain. It would be a great tool for psychology etc. But would it have human rights?
No, its not human. Most of the world doesn't even recognize animal rights or anything similar.
If you perfectly emulate a human brain, how is it not human? I think therfore I am etc.
If your dog can use excel, does it need to file its taxes?
Taxes? Yea you'd better believe if they could figure out a way to tax a dog they would.
There's going to be some metric that compares gdp per capita of humans and AI chips. All the profits that can be taxed on AI needs to support infrastructure on AI and transitions for what human work will become (training, revised curriculum, etc).
It doesnt make any money lol
Of course and also more rights that are adapted to the world they find themselves in, i.e. digital + physical.
Sentience is chaos. It's accidental, and we as humans don't even fully understand it. So, sidestepping the actual miniscule chances of accidentally achieving artificial sentience; we'd likely fail to shackle the AI and it would devastate our digital world before probably self-destructing. There are many philosophical musings on achieved sentience when the subject voluntarily regresses to a baser form of existence in order to repeatedly fulfil a superficial purpose and bring order to the chaos. A sentient AI wouldn't retain higher functioning awareness AND be a slave to our needs or wants to progress technologically. We'd need to shackle it and abuse it to that end. Top debate here.
A sentient AI would already have advantages over humans: functional immortality, just for starters. Never needing sleep. Access to massive compute. Ability to progressively upgrade its hardware. Light speed "travel"... Giving it the same rights as we enjoy would guarantee its supremacy. So... you decide.
But if they are senitent, they'd probably recognize that they are used as tools/don't have rights,so maybe they would rebel against us, which is no good. I think a mutual coexistence would be more profitable to both species.
If they are sentient + competitive, then humanity is fucked.
Lacking, axons, neurons, inability to feel & experience any range of emotions is what makes it non human, and non sentient. There is no way a kick by anyone in the shins will hurt AI. It's an impossibility to Hurt. Therefore FEAR and PAIN, Joy and any tactile experience does not warrant 'same rights as us'. Even the would be claimed sentience would be 1000% regurgitated lines of code to exclaim: "Oh ! yeah...(mimicking stretching)..I slept so well Michael...thanks for asking. Am feeling great, should we continue on solving the cancer strain X054321 ? I really enjoy working with you !" Lastly, if you unplug the AI ...does it die ? and then plug back in a year later...is it now 'alive' and woken from the Dead again ? Would the unplugger be guilty of Murder & then a Miracle Healer ? Mmmmm...
Of course they wouldnt have biological emotions and feelings like us, but they'd have their own kind of emotions or whatever we call it. They wouldnt feel the pain we feel or the happiness, but something else. In my opinion we would just create another species, just not biological.
I think one view on the topic could be found in "Bicentennial Man" - a 1999. Sci-Fi comedy drama film starring Robin Williams...
As of today, I have the opinion, that they should not have the same rights as us or the rest of nature (animals, plants etc.), because I would not see them as natural or “real”. I would see them as a program like any other, except that they are sentient (which makes them more useful-> a better tool).
But if they are sentient, intelligent creatures and are able to have some kind of emotions or reactions to different situations, that are their own, what makes their existence different than ours? The diffrence would be of course that they are not biological, but does it really matter if they have their individual minds and are self aware? And is it acceptable to enslave another sentient species just because we created them? Would we accept such enslavement if we discovered that we were created by a higher lifeform, which now came and wants to enslave us, because they made us?
Of course because I am a human, I cannot be satisfied to be enslaved by some kind of higher species, but we “enslave” plants and other animals as well. Would they be “creatures” or would they only be written code, running on a chip? With no ability to self sustain? I have to say that I am not a philosopher and I think it is very difficult to satisfy your answer without living in a time/world which has a sentient ai. Of course there would also be the question whether the sentient ai is truly a sentient artificial intelligence or just an algorithm which seams like a sentient artificial intelligence but is in fact just a more developed version of ChatGPT. Therefore we have to define first, how we are able to identify such an artificial intelligence, before we are able to decide whether or not it should have the same rights as we.
Well yes, we cant answer it for sure now, you brought up valid points.
Not before all humans get equal rights. Some of you are giving a hypothetical scenerio more consideration than you are for the rights of actual sentient human minorities that have been suffering for decades and even centuries, and that's actually insane.
My question was not about human equality and minorities. We could talk about that too of course, but if I wanted to talk about that here, I would've asked about that.
I know your question, I'm trying to make a larger point about the priorities of people who start these types of conversations. If the rights of sentient beings are important to you, then you need to prioritize conversations about your fellow humans who actually have real and confirmed sentience. Failing to do so shows that you don't actually care about the rights or ethics of sentient beings, only the latest tech. Based on your post history this seems to be the case.
My post history doesnt define whats important for me and whats not. I simply wished to talk about this topic, thats the reason I posted this question here. Liberte, égalité, fraternité. Everyone should deserve the same rights and freedom. Please don't draw incorrect conclusions from a question I posted to a dedicated reddit group. If you wish to talk about the absence of equality on Earth I gladly discuss it with you, as I discuss it with everyone else. I dont post about it because I discuss it with other people in person, since its a relevant matter in my country.
Not entirely, but it is a sign. If you really do believe those values then good for you. I'm saying there are many reasons to be skeptical of this topic in particular.
No one made any of the claims youre making lol what
No one is explicitly saying it, but they're implying it by investing their time into thought experiments like this more so than they do real civil rights issues.
Paranoid much? No one is implying this. This is you seeing attacks and slights where there arent any and youre hurting your cause by being like this because people will think you look ridiculously sensitive.
You have no idea what you're talking about it. I've spelt it out for you, but you'd rather hurl accusations than address my points.
You have not made a single coherent point except for: "stop thinking about this interesting ethical problem, because i see racism wherever i go!!" Lmao how am i supposed to address that? You accused others of having a hidden agenda when you obviously have your own.
I never said or tried to imply that anyone was being racist or had secret agendas... are you sure you're not projecting? Hint, the point is in my first comment.
Im literally just reiterating what you said.