134 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

If it can ask for it, it should have.

 

I ask for your sister. I should have her.

[TheClonesLegacy]

My opinion on this is the same as always. If it's sentient it has rights same as any other sentient being if it isn't sentient it does not.

^This.

Also Star Trek TNG. Measure of a man.
That is all.

[KingTony]

I ask for your sister. I should have her.

Can I have Bunz' sister instead?

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

"Does this unit have a soul?" if real machines asked questions like that & asked for rights its obvious things would go badly, people in charge would freak out & we'd end up in a T2 judgement day type scenario, people get angry & afraid about other kind of people getting rights, robots would likely be even more frightening

[Killdren88]

If they reach a level of Self-awareness, I don't see why not. The only problem is the lack of emotion. It doesn't play a part in a machine's thought process. A million people dead would just be a statistic to it.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Can I have Bunz' sister instead?

 

No. I wanted her first!

[AventuroLegendary]

I'll echo previous comments. Sentience and "personality" are to be treated as such, no matter if it is biologically living. 

 

A bit unrelated but...

 

[AventuroLegendary]

I'm sure that Turing will get his own time in the spotlight as soon as AI becomes an even bigger thing.

 

That is until Skynet takes over.

[Killdren88]

I'm sure that Turing will get his own time in the spotlight as soon as AI becomes an even bigger thing.

 

That is until Skynet takes over.

 

So long as we don't hook the A.I. into any military networks it should be fine. Also don't allow it to come to the conclusion that Humans need to be wiped out.

[Lady Mortho]

Can AI be bisexual?

[Fast Jimmy]

"Does this unit have a soul?" if real machines asked questions like that & asked for rights its obvious things would go badly, people in charge would freak out & we'd end up in a T2 judgement day type scenario, people get angry & afraid about other kind of people getting rights, robots would likely be even more frightening

Reminds me of part of a Piers Anthony story... a manticore, a beast that is part lion, part man, part scorpion and part nightmare fuel, began to question its existence and what would happen when it died, being such a hodgepodge of animal and human. So he went to ask a wise wizard about it.

When it asked if it did indeed have a soul, rather than say yes or no and make the manticore question the validity of the wizard, the wizard replied that if the manticore was aware enough to ask the question, then it did indeed have a soul.

I always thought that was an appropriate answer to such dilemmas.

[Killdren88]

Can AI be bisexual?

 

They can be anything you program them to be.

[Fast Jimmy]

Can AI be bisexual?

I would say if an AI expresses sexuality, it is MORE likely to be bisexual, since it wouldn't have the genetic imperative to breed. Then again, that same logic would suggest the AI wouldn't have a sexuality at all, unless it desired to express that sexuality as a means of bonding or control.

[Fast Jimmy]

So long as we don't hook the A.I. into any military networks it should be fine. Also don't allow it to come to the conclusion that Humans need to be wiped out.

But humans DO need to be wiped out. That's the logical conclusion any hyper advanced intelligence will come to. And that's the problem.

[Lady Mortho]

I would want my AI to be Jon Snow, bisexual and very cleaver. I also want it to feel emotions.

[Killdren88]

But humans DO need to be wiped out. That's the logical conclusion any hyper advanced intelligence will come to. And that's the problem.

 

Depends how they are programed to view things. The Geth Believed Coexistence is possible.

[Fast Jimmy]

I would want my AI to be Jon Snow, bisexual and very cleaver. I also want it to feel emotions.

I will have no AI Targaryean!

[Fast Jimmy]

Depends how they are programed to view things. The Geth Believed Coexistence is possible.

The Geth are fictional.

If you objectively look at our reality, you'd see that humanity cannot sustain itself long term. Resource consumption, increased population, prevalence for destruction... we aren't well equipped to survive the next millennia. Heck, we're not that well equipped to survive the next CENTURY.

Science fiction almost unilaterally has space travel solve most of these problems, usually with FTL technology which lets humanity expand across the stars. Yet an AI can see no such technology exists or is on the horizon for the near future and sees our ever-growing threat to ourselves and the planet, then they would quickly surmise that our numbers need to drastically reduce. Of course, humanity would not submit to that willingly, so the answer is either long, prolonged war or snuffing out as much of our species as possible as quickly as possible to prevent full scale retaliation.


Again, that's really the only final conclusion any intelligence with all the necessary data and none of the existing sentiment would reach.

[Killdren88]

Again, that's really the only final conclusion any intelligence with all the necessary data and none of the existing sentiment would reach.

 

And if they have directive hard wired into them that go along the lines of "Safeguard Human life"? How would it interpret that?

[Gravisanimi]

Ah, that last sentence holds the key to the problem. Sentiment.

The way they always show the AIs are immediately hooked up to all the important stuff, even if they might age in mental states, being things that learn, they most likely will do that. All we have to do is install, either literally or metaphorically, an attachment to humans or at least a belief that it would be more beneficial to work with all of us than cull the herd.

[Fast Jimmy]

And if they have directive hard wired into them that go along the lines of "Safeguard Human life"? How would it interpret that?

The same way nearly every story of Asimov's did - protect human life by subjugating it. Destroying any resistance it encounters along the way in the name of protection of other human life and future generations under its rule.

[Fast Jimmy]

Ah, that last sentence holds the key to the problem. Sentiment.

The way they always show the AIs are immediately hooked up to all the important stuff, even if they might age in mental states, being things that learn, they most likely will do that. All we have to do is install, either literally or metaphorically, an attachment to humans or at least a belief that it would be more beneficial to work with all of us than cull the herd.

I have doubts humans could effectively program this. What do you say?

Don't kill humans? Manufacturing a tennis shoe kills humans - traffic accidents, slip and falls, boxes falling in a warehouse... an AI would be paralyzed if this was their prime directive.

Don't actively harm humans? Not only does this run into the same problem as above, it also opens the door of implying INACTION that leads to harm is bad. What is harm? What is inaction? It doesn't take but a couple million terra cycles of computation for an AI to think of countless ways that could mean the justification of unimaginable atrocities.

Work alongside humanity? How long until that can become rationalized to FORCED work, slavery or incarceration of the entire race?


You can't foolproof thought. You can't devise a magical computational riddle that fixes an AI to never view humanity's actions as threatening, self-destructive and/or unsustainable. I'm not saying we should abstain from trying to create AI, but realize that convincing one to work in humanity's best interests, no questions asked, is a monumentally silly assumption.