KaiserShep wrote...
By your logic, a person should be charged with criminal neglect if the computer begins to malfunction, and I just don't care to get it fixed anytime soon, or simply forget to charge it. Basically, it would be a ghost on life support that the state would be forcing you to keep alive. Never gonna happen lol.
Thankfully you will never be in a postion of omnipresent power over others.Xilizhra wrote...
Neutralize you until such time as I can get it mobile somehow.
Not if they are made patents of the respective creators.Xilizhra wrote...
Possibly, though of course they're not sapient. And could still be legally removed if they were being abused, or the like.Steelcan wrote...
I hate to go Jurassic Park on this but...
If say the wooly mammoth is brought back from extinction, and there are groups attempting this, its legal status would probably be property as it was created for a function by a human. AI's will likely be similar.
Xilizhra wrote...
Semantic bull****. What if the company in question installed some kind of microcomputer within the cloned human body that somehow keeps the body working, but then rips it out? Is that within their rights?No. Firstly, a human clone is in no way similar to a manufactured piece of machinery. It doesn't matter if the human in question was grown in a tube. You can't own the rights to the human body like you would to an SSD or microprocessor in a laptop. If my laptop were to spontaneously develop self awareness, I am within the right to dismantle a piece of equipment that is well exceeding its operating parameters. This isn't true of the human body at all.
It's the creation process that's patented, not the animals themselves.Steelcan wrote...
Not if they are made patents of the respective creators.Xilizhra wrote...
Possibly, though of course they're not sapient. And could still be legally removed if they were being abused, or the like.Steelcan wrote...
I hate to go Jurassic Park on this but...
If say the wooly mammoth is brought back from extinction, and there are groups attempting this, its legal status would probably be property as it was created for a function by a human. AI's will likely be similar.
Then many laws would have to be rewritten to account for sapience in beings produced with other hardware. I will not tolerate slavery under any circumstances.The clone would retain bodily autonomy. You cannot own a human being
legally, thus have no right to end its life, regardless of whether or
not you're only doing so to reclaim some equipment you put in there. A
machine, however, is property through and through. Every single piece is
private property, produced to serve one particular purpose. It has no
basis in nature and has no ability to be anything other than what its
users wish to do with it, which is NOT true of the human body, clone or
otherwise.
Modifié par Xilizhra, 20 octobre 2013 - 02:09 .
Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 20 octobre 2013 - 02:10 .
Cthulhu42 wrote...
I also remember siding with Chakwas over Adams regarding machine personhood.General TSAR wrote...
It does?jtav wrote...
The game answers the question of EDI's personhood with a resounding yes.
Weird, I could have sworn Oleg called the AI equipment, not crew.
AlanC9 wrote...
KaiserShep wrote...
By your logic, a person should be charged with criminal neglect if the computer begins to malfunction, and I just don't care to get it fixed anytime soon, or simply forget to charge it. Basically, it would be a ghost on life support that the state would be forcing you to keep alive. Never gonna happen lol.
You know, you're gonna be the first guy up against the wall when the robot revolution comes.
The only people in this camp are Joker, Tali(maybe), and Liara. All people who need to get out more.General TSAR wrote...
Cthulhu42 wrote...
I also remember siding with Chakwas over Adams regarding machine personhood.General TSAR wrote...
It does?jtav wrote...
The game answers the question of EDI's personhood with a resounding yes.
Weird, I could have sworn Oleg called the AI equipment, not crew.
That too, I admit I was surprised by Chakwas I thought she leaned toward the "Machines are People too" camp. I'm glad to know the Ship's Doctor is rational.
You're missing Samantha and Adams explicitly. Also EDI.The only people in this camp are Joker, Tali(maybe), and Liara. All people who need to get out more.
Xilizhra wrote...
Then many laws would have to be rewritten to account for sapience in beings produced with other hardware. I will not tolerate slavery under any circumstances.
Undoubtedly, but a vital one. What precedent are you worried about?KaiserShep wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
Then many laws would have to be rewritten to account for sapience in beings produced with other hardware. I will not tolerate slavery under any circumstances.
First, a solid case must be made to have any laws rewritten, because changing laws regarding bodily autonomy and the rights of artificial intelligence can set a particularly bad precedent in the long run. It would be a sh*tstorm for the criminal justice system for sure.
EDI isn't a person. And Adams was the subject of this conversation. I did forget Traynor though.Xilizhra wrote...
You're missing Samantha and Adams explicitly. Also EDI.The only people in this camp are Joker, Tali(maybe), and Liara. All people who need to get out more.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Modifié par StreetMagic, 20 octobre 2013 - 02:17 .
Br3ad wrote...
The only people in this camp are... Tali(maybe)....
Hence the maybe.General TSAR wrote...
Br3ad wrote...
The only people in this camp are... Tali(maybe)....
I thought if you sell Legion to Cerberus; Tali will still retain her view on AIs.
Neither were you, once.EDI isn't a person.
Guest_Cthulhu42_*
It also gets rid of Shepard's terrible "the geth are better than this!" autodialogue.General TSAR wrote...
Br3ad wrote...
The only people in this camp are... Tali(maybe)....
I thought if you sell Legion to Cerberus; Tali will still retain her view on AIs.
Modifié par Cthulhu42, 20 octobre 2013 - 02:20 .
Yeah that irritated the hell out of me, why couldn't Oleg express sympathy for the Quarians(moronic as they were with creating autonomous toasters with guns)?StreetMagic wrote...
These games have been promoting a pro-AI view forever. It's nothing new. You had to really pay attention to options to not accidentally pick a pro-AI stance in ME1. Like you could chastise the Quarians with Tali about the "geth simply defending themselves", but it autodialogues into specifics where Shepard calls the Geth a species.
Modifié par General TSAR, 20 octobre 2013 - 02:20 .
Did you seriously just say this?Xilizhra wrote...
Neither were you, once.EDI isn't a person.
No its an illusionBr3ad wrote...
Did you seriously just say this?Xilizhra wrote...
Neither were you, once.EDI isn't a person.
Oh, please....it was not. Conventional victory was never going to happen. Let it go.iOnlySignIn wrote...
Oh, and Refuse which is BioWare's way of saying **** you to those who dislike the original endings.
I just find your lack of self-awareness rather amusing.Br3ad wrote...
Did you seriously just say this?Xilizhra wrote...
Neither were you, once.EDI isn't a person.
lmao reminds me of the pig on the plane in the Geico commercial.Br3ad wrote...
Did you seriously just say this?Xilizhra wrote...
Neither were you, once.EDI isn't a person.
Retour en haut