244 réponses à ce sujet

[Awesomeman24]

nitefyre410 wrote...

 The great and distingust Jean Luc Picard  somes up my thoughts on AI 

better than even I can...

Measure of a Man

Oh excellent link.  Very insightful.  My thoughts exactly.

[Rockpopple]

The Angry One wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Sorry I edited before you quickly replied: murder implies a morality I refuse to assign to a machine. I can kill it, yes, but murder? No more than I can murder a toaster.

Your logic is this:

A human is an animal. Therefore you can no more murder a human than you can a stoat.

lol. Totally wrong. Show me a stoat that built something. If AI ever comes into being it's because a human being built it for a specific purpose. If that AI deviates from that purpose because it developes feelings for whatever reason, put it in the dirt, or fix it. As you would a toaster that stopped working. 

Now if an alien AI comes from space with a totally different question, all rules fly out the window, but regarding human created AI? Pfft. 

[Baronesa]

Rockpopple wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

The justification that the other is not human, is not a person, is not the same has been used many times in history.

Sure, and in those cases it was wrong because it obviously involved humans. In this case it's right because it obviously doesn't involve humans. Nuff said.

And exactly the same excuse could be said if we ever encounter an alien lifeform... they are not humans therefore it is not murder.

What matters is if they are sentient beings, regardless of how they came to be... biology or synthetic means.

[Ageless Face]

While they are not "alive" as organics, they live in their own way.

[The Angry One]

Rockpopple wrote...

lol. Totally wrong. Show me a stoat that built something. If AI ever comes into being it's because a human being built it for a specific purpose. If that AI deviates from that purpose because it developes feelings for whatever reason, put it in the dirt, or fix it. As you would a toaster that stopped working. 

Now if an alien AI comes from space with a totally different question, all rules fly out the window, but regarding human created AI? Pfft. 

What does it matter who created it? A sapient being is a sapient being.

[Reorte]

Rockpopple wrote...

lol. Totally wrong. Show me a stoat that built something. If AI ever comes into being it's because a human being built it for a specific purpose. If that AI deviates from that purpose because it developes feelings for whatever reason, put it in the dirt, or fix it. As you would a toaster that stopped working. 

Now if an alien AI comes from space with a totally different question, all rules fly out the window, but regarding human created AI? Pfft.

So why it is made is more important than what it actually is? By that logic it would be fine to breed humans for slavery.

[Baronesa]

Reorte wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

lol. Totally wrong. Show me a stoat that built something. If AI ever comes into being it's because a human being built it for a specific purpose. If that AI deviates from that purpose because it developes feelings for whatever reason, put it in the dirt, or fix it. As you would a toaster that stopped working. 

Now if an alien AI comes from space with a totally different question, all rules fly out the window, but regarding human created AI? Pfft.

So why it is made is more important than what it actually is? By that logic it would be fine to breed humans for slavery.

Or genetically engineer them like that too...

[The Angry One]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Machines can't be people without green space magic, yo. The EC says so.

Though thanks for making destroy easier, BioWare.

[Reorte]

Baronesa wrote...

Reorte wrote...

So why it is made is more important than what it actually is? By that logic it would be fine to breed humans for slavery.

Or genetically engineer them like that too...

Good point - how about the replicants in Blade Runner?

[Rockpopple]

It's infinitely important as to what created it. As I said before, we ultimately don't know where sapient or sentient life comes from. It's still a mystery to us, despite our science. But if a machine starts walking around we know it's because we made it to do so, and the machine knows that too. That's an important distinction.

Of course in real life, machines just won't spring to life. Like another poster said here, AI will develop because humans will it to. That makes us ultimately responsible for how it develops. To which I say, if it starts developing feelings, we need to pull the plug on it. No other choice.

But hey, this topic asked for my opinion on AI and I gave it. I don't care much for the machines.

Edit: Also, I hold that you can't assign human morality to machines. Comparing AI to human slaves is a bit boring, imho.

Modifié par Rockpopple, 30 juin 2012 - 07:58 .

[Reorte]

Rockpopple wrote...

It's infinitely important as to what created it. As I said before, we ultimately don't know where sapient or sentient life comes from. It's still a mystery to us, despite our science. But if a machine starts walking around we know it's because we made it to do so, and the machine knows that too. That's an important distinction.

And exactly the same is true for the person who has been bred to be a slave. What something is and what it does matters. Where it came from is only of academic interest.

Rockpopple wrote...

Edit: Also, I hold that you can't assign human morality to machines. Comparing AI to human slaves is a bit boring, imho.

Boring? No. Key.

You are trying for circular reasoning. Why can't you assign human morality to it? 

Modifié par Reorte, 30 juin 2012 - 08:02 .

[Ryzaki]

Me? Would depend on a case by case basis.

I would consider EDI and the Geth on the same footing as organic life though. (hell in higher standings than some races, lower than my own of course (self preservation and what not) but I wouldn't consider them just machines).

[Sisterofshane]

Problem Much Rockpopple?.

The only fundamental difference between ourselves and a true AI is that, as of now, we don't quite understand exactly how we function. That's why AI DOES NOT YET EXIST, because we cannot recreate what we don't really understand. This is the problem with sci-fi depictions of AI technology.

The truth of the matter is that, when we build one, we will have a much better understanding of how we function to become sentient beings, like in the article above. Then they won't be so foreign and scary, will they?

[Abraham_uk]

Creating AI is problematic at best.

AI might rebel and try an irradicate the human race.
I doubt that AI would be created deliberately.

Basically robot slaves will be made more advanced to a point where they can think for themselves and have emotions. At that point they will realise that they are slaves and exterminate mankind.

That is why I am genuinely and wholeheartedly against the creation of true Artificial Intelligence.

But if you're talking about video game AI. Well they're dumb, stupid and pose a threat to no one.

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 30 juin 2012 - 08:04 .

[Rockpopple]

Now we're talking about humans grown in a vat to be slaves? First of all, that's a completely different conundrum with a set of not-so-very-simple "of course we treat them as humans!" answers.

The discussion here is about AI. I'm keeping it on-topic. You wanna have a discussion about vat-grown people... for some reason... we can do that somewhere else.

To me it's very simple: some corporation builds a machine that somewhere along the lines starts to think it's people, that corporation has every right to recall those machines and bust their heads open to find out what went wrong. Better that than the effing Matrix happening or some kind of armed conflict.

[Zero132132]

Not alive, but whether something is alive or not isn't what I regard as important. I'm more concerned about the degree to which it's self-aware, the degree to which new knowledge can be incorporated, and the degree to which it can contemplate ethical questions from multiple value systems.

KingNothing125 wrote...

In-universe, I accept the established fiction that machines can be sentient beings.

But IRL I think it's impossible to make a machine truly intelligent and sentient. Machines are programmed. They mimic life, they aren't alive.

Doesn't relate to life, but all sentience requires is that something can reflect on its own existence, and take this existence into account with other thoughts. This capability can be programmed.

Your own thoughts and behaviors are the result of the structure of your brain and your past experiences. How difference is this from a program, really?

[The Angry One]

Rockpopple wrote...

Now we're talking about humans grown in a vat to be slaves? First of all, that's a completely different conundrum with a set of not-so-very-simple "of course we treat them as humans!" answers.

The discussion here is about AI. I'm keeping it on-topic. You wanna have a discussion about vat-grown people... for some reason... we can do that somewhere else.

To me it's very simple: some corporation builds a machine that somewhere along the lines starts to think it's people, that corporation has every right to recall those machines and bust their heads open to find out what went wrong. Better that than the effing Matrix happening or some kind of armed conflict.

A vat-grown person would be created by other humans. They would know what gave them life, and we would know we created them.
Seems like the same situation to me. You're just biased because of pre-established labels. Yeah that's a human therefore it must have rights!

[ghost9191]

ai can't feel emotions right? they emulate life but they are alive in their own way

[Reorte]

Rockpopple wrote...

Now we're talking about humans grown in a vat to be slaves? First of all, that's a completely different conundrum with a set of not-so-very-simple "of course we treat them as humans!" answers.

The discussion here is about AI. I'm keeping it on-topic. You wanna have a discussion about vat-grown people... for some reason... we can do that somewhere else.

We're talking about that because you're contending that what matters is the origin of something and not its nature.

To me it's very simple: some corporation builds a machine that somewhere along the lines starts to think it's people, that corporation has every right to recall those machines and bust their heads open to find out what went wrong. Better that than the effing Matrix happening or some kind of armed conflict.

So you keep saying without justifying it. You're not answering the question about whether it's alive or not when you do that.

[Ryzaki]

The Angry One wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Now we're talking about humans grown in a vat to be slaves? First of all, that's a completely different conundrum with a set of not-so-very-simple "of course we treat them as humans!" answers.

The discussion here is about AI. I'm keeping it on-topic. You wanna have a discussion about vat-grown people... for some reason... we can do that somewhere else.

To me it's very simple: some corporation builds a machine that somewhere along the lines starts to think it's people, that corporation has every right to recall those machines and bust their heads open to find out what went wrong. Better that than the effing Matrix happening or some kind of armed conflict.

A vat-grown person would be created by other humans. They would know what gave them life, and we would know we created them.
Seems like the same situation to me. You're just biased because of pre-established labels. Yeah that's a human therefore it must have rights!

There was so stupid hollywood movie about people being grown to be organ donors. They were killed when their parts were needed for the benefactor. That's all their existence amounted to.

Damn if only I remembered the name..

[Abraham_uk]

Humanity is a flawed and dangerous race that is at very best a corrupted force that leaches resources and kills animals.

Creating synthetics and giving them the ability to think will ultimatly lead to another competing human race. They will try to destroy humanity because humanity is a major threat to them.

Why, because they are just another species that we will exploit. They will rid the Earth of humanity.

[Rockpopple]

@Reorte: as for the question whether AI is life or not, I don't know, since AI doesn't exist. But if it did, I'd say it's just a pale imatation of human life. Or the most basic form of life.... I don't know. Who cares, it's AI. Burn it with fire.

As for your continued assertion that I reply to this ridiculous soylent green people comparison, fine whatever. Kill them too if they start getting out of line, what do I care? If they were grown in a vat for the sole purpose of being eaten or being used as slaves, then I don't see much of a difference between them and slaves.

In fact, we could derail this topic and talk about whether cloned human life is the same as real human life. We could get all up in that existentialism.

Modifié par Rockpopple, 30 juin 2012 - 08:11 .

[The Angry One]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Humanity is a flawed and dangerous race that is at very best a corrupted force that leaches resources and kills animals.

Creating synthetics and giving them the ability to think will ultimatly lead to another competing human race. They will try to destroy humanity because humanity is a major threat to them.

Why, because they are just another species that we will exploit. They will rid the Earth of humanity.

Animals kill animals too.
THOSE POLLUTING MONSTERS.

[bleetman]

ghost9191 wrote...

ai can't feel emotions right? they emulate life but they are alive in their own way

EDI certainly seems to.