Should A.I.'s be treated as living beings?

Tackel · June 21, 2015, 01:13:09 PM

A.I. technology has been developed a lot throughout the years, and we're at a point where they can think on their own (although extremely limited). Give technology a few more decades, and I wouldn't be surprised if thinking A.I.'s would be come the norm.

If such an event did happen, would society treat them like living things? Would they be, essentially, slaves to us? Is it morally right to do that to something that can think, even though it is a man made creation?

More Than Mortal · June 21, 2015, 01:18:43 PM

If it's sentient, then it's deserves moral consideration.

Turkey · June 21, 2015, 01:38:48 PM

Quote from: Tackelberry on June 21, 2015, 01:13:09 PM

A.I. technology has been developed a lot throughout the years, and we're at a point where they can think on their own (although extremely limited).

Is this a hypothetical situation? Because we are not even close to actual artificial intelligence.

Verbatim · June 21, 2015, 01:46:12 PM

They'll never be sentient, so no.

Sandtrap · June 21, 2015, 01:48:22 PM

Speaking of, I feel like watching Bicentenial Man tonight.

As Meta said. If we can consider it sentient, then of course. Although, defining sentience isn't as easy as picking out your favorite cereal box at the store. And, it only gets more complex if you add engineered coding and thinking into the process.

The real intriguing thing to find, is at what point, does the code essentially, "come alive?"

eggsalad · June 21, 2015, 01:49:33 PM

If they start to participate in society like we do, then sure. But there are few more elements they have to fulfill to join the social contract. And because of the nature of what AI are made for, it seems unlikely that they'd ever start become characters that act in society.

Verbatim · June 21, 2015, 01:51:06 PM

Never--I mean, we've had this discussion before, but there would be no purpose whatsoever in even giving AI sentience, beyond "because we can" (which is, of course, the dumbest possible reason to do anything).

Ignoring for a moment the fact that it would be unethical as hell.

Sandtrap · June 21, 2015, 01:52:37 PM

Quote

even though it is a man made creation?

Oh yes, and this. By this set of logic, all children are man or woman made creations since they were technically engineered biologically.

Of course, you can dispute that on the case that some people are treated like slaves simply because they're offspring to somebody.

So.

Conundrums.

Sandtrap · June 21, 2015, 01:59:40 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 01:51:06 PM

Never--I mean, we've had this discussion before, but there would be no purpose whatsoever in even giving AI sentience, beyond "because we can" (which is, of course, the dumbest possible reason to do anything).

Ignoring for a moment the fact that it would be unethical as hell.

I always figured, that an AI would come with some, key word here, hopefully good benifits.

The first being, that an AI is an intelligence on a scale beyond ours. This is a different classification of intelligence and therefore, it's limitations are not restricted to ours.

Who is to say that it couldn't evolve into something that transcends limitations? I mean, for starters, they wouldn't feel physical pain. They wouldn't technically be able to die so long as they had replacement parts to maintain themselves.

And, most of all, who is to say that they couldn't help us move past our limitations?

When we consider that technology is a part of evolution, a natural point at which a species reaches the capability to produce it, and likewise, technology could be considered the process of speeding up evolution, then something like an AI could be a pretty big step forwards.

More Than Mortal · June 21, 2015, 01:59:48 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 01:51:06 PM

but there would be no purpose whatsoever in even giving AI sentience

You mean apart from creating the single most intelligent agent we're likely to ever witness?

Verbatim · June 21, 2015, 02:00:55 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on June 21, 2015, 01:52:37 PM

Oh yes, and this. By this set of logic, all children are man or woman made creations since they were technically engineered biologically.

i think the fact that they're "engineered" biologically, as a biological function, proves the opposite

we don't make babies--our gametes do

Verbatim · June 21, 2015, 02:01:36 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 21, 2015, 01:59:48 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 01:51:06 PM
but there would be no purpose whatsoever in even giving AI sentience
You mean apart from creating the single most intelligent agent we're likely to ever witness?

that's not a purpose

in the sense that it begs the question--why do we need that
we already have information--why do we need to give information a brain

Verbatim · June 21, 2015, 02:05:42 PM

it's like saying, "let's give AI a thirty-inch penis, so it can have the biggest penis we are ever likely to witness"

like... why
forgive me if i'm just being obtuse or myopic, but i mean, that's really what it sounds like to me

eggsalad · June 21, 2015, 02:09:37 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 01:51:06 PM

Ignoring for a moment the fact that it would be unethical as hell.

Is this along the same lines of how you think it's unethical to reproduce? (Not that I disagree)

More Than Mortal · June 21, 2015, 02:13:29 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 02:01:36 PM

we already have information--why do we need to give information a brain

So it can be processed, of course.

Humanity's problems stem from a deficit in collating and processing information.

Verbatim · June 21, 2015, 02:14:08 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 21, 2015, 02:09:37 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 01:51:06 PM
Ignoring for a moment the fact that it would be unethical as hell.
Is this along the same lines of how you think it's unethical to reproduce? (Not that I disagree)

yeah

in my opinion, AI should only be used for protocol
they should efficiently perform a given set of tasks

without question, without fear of pain, and without loss of energy

sentience adds nothing but nonsense
emotions and another tripe that would just get in the way

Verbatim · June 21, 2015, 02:16:20 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 21, 2015, 02:13:29 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 02:01:36 PM
we already have information--why do we need to give information a brain
So it can be processed, of course.

Humanity's problems stem from a deficit in collating and processing information.

well, you can't make a ball bounce higher than it falls

besides, i don't really know how you define "processed" information
what does it mean for information to be "processed", and why do you need sentience to do that

do you mean problem solving? learning?
i don't think that's a function of sentience--and in some ways, are we not already there?

eggsalad · June 21, 2015, 02:17:07 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 02:14:08 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 21, 2015, 02:09:37 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 01:51:06 PM
Ignoring for a moment the fact that it would be unethical as hell.
Is this along the same lines of how you think it's unethical to reproduce? (Not that I disagree)
yeah

in my opinion, AI should only be used for protocol
they should efficiently perform a given set of tasks

without question, without fear of pain, and without loss of energy

sentience adds nothing but nonsense
emotions and another tripe that would just get in the way

Do you suppose there are ways we could make them that eliminates chances of them suffering? Are inner turmoil and conflicts necessary to a conscious mind?

Verbatim · June 21, 2015, 02:20:43 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 21, 2015, 02:17:07 PM

Do you suppose there are ways we could make them that eliminates chances of them suffering? Are inner turmoil and conflicts necessary to a conscious mind?

i would say the capacity to feel conflict or inner turmoil is integral to sentience, yes

so even if you were to say, "well, robots can't feel pain", well, that's kind of what makes sentience sentience, isn't it?
so if it can't feel pain or suffering or inner turmoil, it's hardly sentient in my opinion

Super Irish · June 21, 2015, 02:49:52 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 01:51:06 PM

Never--I mean, we've had this discussion before, but there would be no purpose whatsoever in even giving AI sentience, beyond "because we can" (which is, of course, the dumbest possible reason to do anything).

I wonder how many times we've considered doing things, "because we can".

The US got as far as planning to not just land on the moon (and they did), but also a plan to blow it up...

But OT, they should be considered though I wouldn't consider them at the moment as they are pretty limited in what they can do for "independent" thought. Give it a couple of decades and a substantial ramp-up in AI, maybe.

More Than Mortal · June 21, 2015, 02:54:38 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 02:16:20 PM

well, you can't make a ball bounce higher than it falls

Of course you can, with self-recursive improvement.

Verbatim · June 21, 2015, 02:56:30 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 21, 2015, 02:54:38 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 02:16:20 PM
well, you can't make a ball bounce higher than it falls
Of course you can, with self-recursive improvement.

this also requires no sentience

More Than Mortal · June 21, 2015, 02:59:02 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 02:56:30 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 21, 2015, 02:54:38 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 02:16:20 PM
well, you can't make a ball bounce higher than it falls
Of course you can, with self-recursive improvement.
this also requires no sentience

It's not a case of "giving" sentience to an AGI; presumably sentience arrives when some point of computational complexity is reached.

Verbatim · June 21, 2015, 03:11:44 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 21, 2015, 02:59:02 PM

It's not a case of "giving" sentience to an AGI; presumably sentience arrives when some point of computational complexity is reached.

like magic, or what

i just don't see that happening, ever

it's like saying we can count to infinity, as though infinity is even a number, let alone something that can be reached

More Than Mortal · June 21, 2015, 03:16:15 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 03:11:44 PM

i just don't see that happening, ever

It has happened numerous times.

Unless you think that the sentience of humans (and a hell of a lot of animal species) arises from something other than neural complexity?

Verbatim · June 21, 2015, 03:17:28 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 21, 2015, 03:16:15 PM

It has happened numerous times.

Unless you think that the sentience of humans (and a hell of a lot of animal species) arises from something other than neural complexity?

nothing we could ever feasibly imitate

More Than Mortal · June 21, 2015, 03:18:33 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 03:17:28 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 21, 2015, 03:16:15 PM
It has happened numerous times.

Unless you think that the sentience of humans (and a hell of a lot of animal species) arises from something other than neural complexity?
nothing we could ever feasibly imitate

There's no basis for that assertion, though.

Pendulate · June 21, 2015, 03:18:38 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 01:51:06 PM

How exactly could we "give" something sentience? It's not some singular property that we'd insert into them like a battery.

If sentience in AI were to happen, it would almost certainly be by accident.

Verbatim · June 21, 2015, 03:20:50 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 21, 2015, 03:18:33 PM

There's no basis for that assertion, though.

it's a hypothesis

i don't even think we should imitate it, so maybe i'm biased

Verbatim · June 21, 2015, 03:21:24 PM

Quote from: Pendulate on June 21, 2015, 03:18:38 PM

If sentience in AI were to happen, it would almost certainly be by accident.

we can't give things by accident?

come on

don't be pedantic, you obviously know what i mean