The rights of artificial beings

Originally Posted by Sabbo

I think you're confusing robots and AI.

Cyborgs are humans within a robotic body. AIs are assumedly within robotic bodies too.

Both are physically robots, and their mental capacities are similar (namely learning); what would give one rights but not the other? Or do neither get rights?

EDIT (for the post below): It's my first post here; I may as well try.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Not really. They have dolls that occasionally do actions that are similar to what a real baby might do, but they are not AIs, they cannot think for themselves.


It's also more durable. So?


Why not?

Here's another question: Let's say someone you know is injured in a car accident and has his liver irreparably damaged. Fortunately, medical science has advanced an amazing amount when this happens, and he is given an artificial liver. Has he stopped being human? I'm going to assume not.

Let's say both his liver and kidneys need to be replaced, is he still human?

Just keep asking that question, each time replacing a new organ (assume that the entire human body can be replicated artificially, the brain included). At what point does your friend stop being human? Why does he stop being human at that point?

A cyborg is part Human and part robot, but if it still has a Human brain, then it's still the same Human. If they replace the Human brain, then it's just a computer in a Human body.

Maybe I don't understand the whole AI thing. Maybe there's something there I'm not grasping. NPCs in games have AI, but I'll still brutally kill them if I need to or feel like it.

An AI does not have to be in a robot, it can be an intelligent computer.
It's really just any technology advanced enough to think, deduce and feel emotion.

Originally Posted by Daphnes

A cyborg is part Human and part robot, but if it still has a Human brain, then it's still the same Human. If they replace the Human brain, then it's just a computer in a Human body.

Maybe I don't understand the whole AI thing. Maybe there's something there I'm not grasping. NPCs in games have AI, but I'll still brutally kill them if I need to or feel like it.

I can't actually think of a single game which has NPCs with AI. I can think of a lot which have NPCs (of course), but none which have learning NPCs. Every single action within a game is specifically programmed to do what it does, and if the game has enough actions programmed, then it may seem like AI. But it's still not true AI.

Originally Posted by Sabbo

I can't actually think of a single game which has NPCs with AI. I can think of a lot which have NPCs (of course), but none which have learning NPCs. Every single action within a game is specifically programmed to do what it does, and if the game has enough actions programmed, then it may seem like AI. But it's still not true AI.

Then I guess I really don't understand what AI is. I thought that was what all computers have. If my computer doesn't have animated intelligence, what does it have?

The NPC's in Oblivion have something called "radiant AI" which is advanced for a game but basic for a true AI.

Daphnes, AI means artificial intelligence.

Originally Posted by Leonri

The NPC's in Oblivion have something called "radiant AI" which is advanced for a game but basic for a true AI.

Daphnes, AI means artificial intelligence.

Yeah, I meant artificial, not animated. My bad.

Still, if it didn't come out of a Human woman, and doesn't have a Human brain, I don't see how it could be Human. If it didn't start out as Human, how can it become Human?

Originally Posted by Daphnes

Yeah, I meant artificial, not animated. My bad.

Still, if it didn't come out of a Human woman, and doesn't have a Human brain, I don't see how it could be Human. If it didn't start out as Human, how can it become Human?

Nobody is saying it would be human, but many of us say it would be the equivalent of a living being - it would have thoughts. It would feel pain if you hurt it. it could fall in love. It may fear death. It could feel, in short, everything a human could feel, and these feelings would be genuine emotion, not just simulations programmed into it by the designer - or at least, no more than ours are.

That's why it would be cruel to terminate it. It would be similar, albeit not identical, to killing a human, or animal.

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

Nobody is saying it would be human, but many of us say it would be the equivalent of a living being - it would have thoughts. It would feel pain if you hurt it. it could fall in love. It may fear death. It could feel, in short, everything a human could feel, and these feelings would be genuine emotion, not just simulations programmed into it by the designer - or at least, no more than ours are.

That's why it would be cruel to terminate it. It would be similar, albeit not identical, to killing a human, or animal.

Maybe if I saw it with my own eyes, I might eventually believe you. I might eventually believe some android named Dan was as close to human as it gets. But I don't see how that would be possible. There would still be limits to its programming, even if it could learn new things.

That's why people say the human brain is so much better than any computer. Our brains don't have the same limitations as a computer brain.

So if, by some miracle of science, we were correct, and this were possible and the AI was as advanced as a human brain (incidentally, I heard somewhere that scientists had predicted we would be able to create such a computer by 2030, and so download our thoughts and memories onto the computer and live forever as a machine, but that's probably inaccurate), would you then still consider terminating this living, learning, conscious machine as perfectly morally acceptable?

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

So if, by some miracle of science, we were correct, and this were possible and the AI was as advanced as a human brain (incidentally, I heard somewhere that scientists had predicted we would be able to create such a computer by 2030, and so download our thoughts and memories onto the computer and live forever as a machine, but that's probably inaccurate), would you then still consider terminating this living, learning, conscious machine as perfectly morally acceptable?

Yeah, pretty much.

Though I suppose if it started to cry and beg, and ran off in fear for its "life", then it would be a little wierd running it down.

Why do scientists want to do this again? I understand making androids and putting them to work in dangerous areas, but why do we want to give them emotions? Unless the scientists want us to treat them like people.

And if we did, do you think they would be bothered by the knowledge that they don't grow up like humans? Unless scientists actually make it so their bodies grow, or all the sndroids are created to resenble people in their twenties or so.

Originally Posted by Daphnes

Yeah, pretty much.

Well that's where I and some others feel your view is unethical.

Though I suppose if it started to cry and beg, and ran off in fear for its "life", then it would be a little wierd running it down.

Why? It's only a piece of hardware after all.

Why do scientists want to do this again? I understand making androids and putting them to work in dangerous areas, but why do we want to give them emotions? Unless the scientists want us to treat them like people.

I have no idea. I'm not even sure if they do want to do it - I'm not the one who started the thread after all - but I am sure that if it happened, terminating the "life" of the "machine" would be as bad as murder.

And if we did, do you think they would be bothered by the knowledge that they don't grow up like humans? Unless scientists actually make it so their bodies grow, or all the sndroids are created to resenble people in their twenties or so.

I don't know, to be honest. Maybe they would be horrified. Maybe they wouldn't. In an episode of the British Sci-Fi show, Doctor Who, there are some humans who are turned into "Cybermen," and when they see what has happened to them they go insane and start self-destructing. Then again, that is fictional, and anyway, they were human originally. I can't see why animals like dogs can't be bothered by the knowledge that they can't use their front paws like humans can use their hands. I guess the AI would have emotions, but they wouldn't be human - they'd be more like a new species.

I will make a comprimise, Guy. If that happens, and a law is passed naming these things as the equivilent of a new species of simian (Humans are simians), then I'd obey the law.

That's all I have to say.

Originally Posted by Daphnes

Why do scientists want to do this again? I understand making androids and putting them to work in dangerous areas, but why do we want to give them emotions? Unless the scientists want us to treat them like people.

More importantly why not? Being able to simulate intelligence would give us many important insights into our own. What constitutes intelligence?
Are we unique with it? Or are do other animals just have more rudimentary forms of our own?

Originally Posted by Daphnes

I will make a comprimise, Guy. If that happens, and a law is passed naming these things as the equivilent of a new species of simian (Humans are simians), then I'd obey the law.

That's all I have to say.

With all due respect, it shows little. I obey the laws that I can be in trouble for breaking, even when I don't agree with them. I do it because I am opressed by the government.

Would you consider the law just? Should it be passed? Should these things be named a new species of simian?

Those are the questions that matter.

Do you mean Simian or Homo?
Simian is any monkey while Homo is a human like creature

That'd be interesting...

I guess it is homo rather than simian. If it is either. It would be human-like but not a monkey.

What would that be then?

Homo Mechanicus©?
Homo Roboticus©?
Homo Electricus©?
Homo Cyberneticus©?
Homo Artificius©?
Homo Fakus©?
Or Homo Sapiens Mark 2?

Homo Mechanicus sounds right

Or Homo nil-Homo (Man not-Man.... I think)

Originally Posted by Leonri

Do you mean Simian or Homo?
Simian is any monkey while Homo is a human like creature

Sorry. Homo Sapian? Sometimes I get words mixed up.

I don't know if a law like that should or would be passed.

I don't know if it should be done. But I don't think it should be done just for the sake of doing it. That's not a good reason to do something.

Like when they made those lights that you stick on a wall. They're supposed to replace flashlights because you can stick it on a wall, and press it to get light.

I don't think those things are useful. If I wanted to walk somewhere and press something to get light, I'd use a switch. The whole point of a flashlight is that it's portable, so I don't see the point of those things.

It shows in the commercials someone fumbling with a flashlight. But fumbling around for one of those sticky light things isn't any different from fumbling around for a lght switch.

What I'm trying to say is, these things shouldn't be made just because we have the technology to make them. If we're going to create something that needs feul or some sort of nourishment to survive, there needs to be a purpose.

It's one thing when something just happens to exist beyond our control. It's another thing when we use time and resources to create something. If you put effort into making something, there needs to be some productive reason or goal behind it.

And that doesn't include making androids that can think and feel, then observing them like test subjects to see if we can get a better view on how our own minds work.

^ I agree. We should make AI's but carefully, with thought and planning (ever see I Robot?)

Originally Posted by Leonri

Homo Mechanicus sounds right

Oh, I don't know, I was leaning a little bit towards Homo Roboticus...

Hey, I should use them in one of my books! *copyrights*

Originally Posted by Daphnes

It's one thing when something just happens to exist beyond our control. It's another thing when we use time and resources to create something. If you put effort into making something, there needs to be some productive reason or goal behind it.

And that doesn't include making androids that can think and feel, then observing them like test subjects to see if we can get a better view on how our own minds work.

I think observing them like test subjects would be nothing short of cruel. It would be the same as doing it to real humans, if they were that human-like. But on the other hand, they could possibly be made more intelligent than humans. So maybe they could find things we can't. Like a cure for the common cold, a definite cure for cancer, a practical solution to global warming, and accurate, impartial calculation of guilt in courtrooms. Also, there is another thing - playing God. Many people would consider it playing God to create true AI. And many would say that is wrong - others would want to do it. Like Dr Frankenstein. He wanted to create life, and he did. Of course, that all went wrong. We may have troubles, such as if they take over the world, like in the Terminator films. But once these AIs have been created, it no longer matters why they were created, what matters is what we do about it. And kindness is something I think they deserve - and also, kindness comes around in kind. And they'd probably be less likely to take over if we were nice. Not that that is WHY we should be nice. We should be nice just because it is moral.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Leonri

^ I agree. We should make AI's but carefully, with thought and planning (ever see I Robot?)

We need better than the three laws though. We need stricter guidelines.

EDIT 2:

Originally Posted by Leonri

Or Homo nil-Homo (Man not-Man.... I think)

Oh, that sounds good too. I think it is accurate.