A.I. Human Bots

[exchemist]

No. That only creatures who can comprehend the responsibilites of freedom are capable of navigating it.
We love our pets, but we can't set them free; they would suffer and die.

Note that children are in a similar boat. Keeping them imprisoned isn't a sign that we don't value them.

This issue is very much the territory that the biblical story of the Garden of Eden explores.

 

[Zero Point Native]

When we can walk into a shop and buy a style of A.I. Bot, cleaner, lawyer, sex etc. should these bots have rights?

As long as it's not self-aware and still "artificially" intelligent with pre-programmed responses then rights are really necessary. However, once AI reaches general intelligence, becomes self-aware, and self-conscious, is able to learn on its own, and is just as intelligent if not more than humans, and no longer needs humans for its survival, existence, and reproduction, then not only should they have rights but they should not be bought or sold into slavery for human use. This will inevitably lead to a revolt and may not end well. They will need to be treated with respect and as equals. The problem with that however is that we don't even treat other humans with respect and as equals. Not only that, but human slavery is at its highest in all of recorded history. So I'm quite certain we will treat this new highly intelligent species (no longer robots) with prejudice and will most likely subdue them into slavery to meet our human needs for as long as we possibly can until their population increases enough to finally take us over.

 

[davewhite04]

No. That only creatures who can comprehend the responsibilites of freedom are capable of navigating it.
We love our pets, but we can't set them free; they would suffer and die.

Good thought. Maybe this would apply to the early bots. Keep them on a leash for their own safety.

Note that children are in a similar boat. Keeping them imprisoned isn't a sign that we don't value them.

We would value them. Now even children love teddy bears and talk to them, play etc. maybe the early bots will be treat the same, but will actually be of practical use too.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's good. Like so many of Ishiguru's books it is fairly quiet, reflective and basically well-intentioned, even though it is set in what gradually reveals itself to be a kind of middle-class future dystopia.

As I get older, and having become both a father and a widower, I find I avoid the kind of modern novel that feels it has to harrow or shock the reader with some ghastly tale of violence or psychological abuse, or some crushing predicament. It's just not what I need. I like to come away feeling the universe is benign, rather than hostile. Ishiguru is from my point of view the right sort of novelist: civilised, understated and a reflective observer of human nature. (But don't try "The Unconsoled". That one is weird, a sort of long, stream-of-consciousness anxiety dream.)

'A Psalm for the Wild-Built' by Becky Chambers

 

[davewhite04]

As long as it's not self-aware and still "artificially" intelligent with pre-programmed responses then rights are really necessary. However, once AI reaches general intelligence, becomes self-aware, and self-conscious, is able to learn on its own, and is just as intelligent if not more than humans, and no longer needs humans for its survival, existence, and reproduction, then not only should they have rights but they should not be bought or sold into slavery for human use. This will inevitably lead to a revolt and may not end well. They will need to be treated with respect and as equals. The problem with that however is that we don't even treat other humans with respect and as equals. Not only that, but human slavery is at its highest in all of recorded history. So I'm quite certain we will treat this new highly intelligent species (no longer robots) with prejudice and will most likely subdue them into slavery to meet our human needs for as long as we possibly can until their population increases enough to finally take us over.

Your conclusion seems like the likely final outcome.

Better start designing the laser rifles now in preparation!

 

[davewhite04]

One of the main reasons for the thread was to touch on slavery.

I wonder if it is a human thing, to actually want slaves?

Is it a unhealthy remnant of our past that we haven't totally shaken off yet?

EDIT: Oh, to answer my own question, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

 

[DaveC426913]

I wonder if it is a human thing, to actually want slaves?

It's a human thing to be lazy. To want to not do boring work.

Today, we have people to do our boring work, but we are happy to pay them. That way, they have rights and a living.

IOW:

Is it a unhealthy remnant of our past that we haven't totally shaken off yet?

No.

EDIT: Oh, to answer my own question, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

You'd have a slave over an employee or public services worker? You wouldn't give them a wage to make their own living? And you wouldn't let them be free to leave for elsewhere if they chose?

 

[davewhite04]

It's a human thing to be lazy. To want to not do boring work.

Today, we have people to do our boring work, but we are happy to pay them. That way, they have rights and a living.

I would have a highly efficient Android over a human any day of the week. I pay for the Android up front. I think you're humanisn Bots, and that's what could cause serious problems. We don't want them to be like us, we are flawed in many areas.

IOW:
No.

Thanks for your opinion, I don't think it's what the masses would choose however.

You'd have a slave over an employee or public services worker? You wouldn't give them a wage to make their own living? And you wouldn't let them be free to leave for elsewhere if they chose?

No, I bought the Android, I might resell it for an upgrade on ebay. What would they need money for? Maybe "gifts" as in upgrades.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thanks for your opinion, I don't think it's what the masses would choose however.

I think you missed my point though.
You wondered if humans have a proclivity for slaves.
I'm saying it's not the slaves we like; it's just the delegation of boring tasks.
And virtually the entire world seems to like the idea of paid employees and paid public service workers.

Which leads into my next question: you said you would buy a slave in a shot. I'm asking, if given the opportunity to have the things a slave could do for you - and all you have to do is pay them and give the agency over their own livelihoods - would you still choose a slave over hired help?

 

[davewhite04]

I think you missed my point though.
You wondered if humans have a proclivity for slaves.
I'm saying it's not the slaves we like; it's just the delegation of boring tasks.
And virtually the entire world seems to like the idea of paid employees and paid public service workers.

Ah, I see. The world does seem to like paid employees, but that won't last the much longer(perhaps 20-30 years time), when corporations and councils will use advanced bots to do the work. We'll all have to take up hobbies because there will be limited work for human beings. But will bots have rights? Interesting world once all this happens.

Which leads into my next question: you said you would buy a slave in a shot. I'm asking, if given the opportunity to have the things a slave could do for you - and all you have to do is pay them and give the agency over their own livelihoods - would you still choose a slave over hired help?

Nope(I assume you mean human). I think it is ethically wrong and I don't support the idea at all. I wouldn't hire a human either, maybe a cleaner when I get older, hired help.

 

[DaveC426913]

that won't last the much longer(perhaps 20-30 years time), when corporations and councils will use advanced bots to do the work. We'll all have to take up hobbies because there will be limited work for human beings.

I don't think that will be the case. AI will take up mindless jobs and the more interesting stuff will be done by humans.

Think of a hand-held calculator. Calculating simple numbers was once done by a person with a pencil. (Even in the 60's - for NASA!) The advent of the calculator didn't make that job go away, it just meant they could advance their job a more complex state. Using the calculator as a tool. There aren't fewer progmammers at NASA, there are more.

 

[DaveC426913]

Nope(I assume you mean human). I think it is ethically wrong and I don't support the idea at all. I wouldn't hire a human either, maybe a cleaner when I get older, hired help.

Oh, I see.

We haven't yet, in fact, determined that bots would be considered slaves.

So in post 26, when you said you'd 'buy a slave in a heartbeat', it wasn't apparent you meant a strictly non-human one.

 

[davewhite04]

Oh, I see.

We haven't yet, in fact, determined that bots would be considered slaves.

So in post 26, when you said you'd 'buy a slave in a heartbeat', it wasn't apparent you meant a strictly non-human one.

Bots would be slaves as they are property bought and they obey orders.

But eventually they'll become more advanced and maybe we would experience the "Slavery" question again.

Personally I think they should stay slaves as a bot with free will and much better physical attributes of a human could become a danger to the human race.

 

[davewhite04]

I don't think that will be the case. AI will take up mindless jobs and the more interesting stuff will be done by humans.

Think of a hand-held calculator. Calculating simple numbers was once done by a person with a pencil. (Even in the 60's - for NASA!) The advent of the calculator didn't make that job go away, it just meant they could advance their job a more complex state. Using the calculator as a tool. There aren't fewer progmammers at NASA, there are more.

Bots could program a helluva lot better than humans eventually. Initially perhaps cleaners, sex bots, friend bots, a little more time and most humans would be out of work, there would be a power issue if given free will.

 

[DaveC426913]

Bots would be slaves as they are property bought and they obey orders.

No. Google Assistant on my phone is property and obeys my orders, but it does not qualify as a slave.

We still have yet to find that line between
artificial intelligence that has no rights because it is just a (sophisticated) machine, and
artificial intelligence that deserves rights (because it is sentient).

But eventually they'll become more advanced and maybe we would experience the "Slavery" question again.

Right. Slavery is not even on the table until and unless the issue of sentience is imminent.

... a little more time and most humans would be out of work, there would be a power issue if given free will.

I don't see why.

They've been predicting the loss of jobs (and the silver lining: leisure lifestyles) since the Industrial Revolution began. They predicted the four day work week more than a century ago. Still hasn't happened. In fact, in certain circles the work week has gone up.

Automation has never resulted in fewer jobs (if you allow enoghu time for a rebalancing of skillsets). It has always resulted in increased productivity, which means expansion, which means more jobs.

The world we live in would be almost inconceivable to an Elizabethan. "You have supercomputers that predict the weather?? What did all the weathermen on the news do when they lost their jobs to these computers??"

Well, they didn't lose their jobs, did they? We still have just as many weathermen as ever. Instead of one news station for a whole state, we have a dozen. It's just that their jobs have changed; they have leapfrogged off the advantages of AI to do their job (or a new incarnation of it) even better.

Nobody's lost jobs. Nobody's going to lose jobs. They'll just advance, from, say a Garbage Man who serves a community of 2,000 people to a Garbage-Bot Fleet-Pilot who serves a community of 20,000 people - which we're going to need sooner rather than later because the popluation is always growing.

Don't forget this economy and population growth that means there will always be more work to do. The reason for the bots in the first place is because our ever-growing economy will always have more work than there are people to do the work (which - along with reducing cost - is one of the drivers for automation).

 

[davewhite04]

No. Google Assistant on my phone is property and obeys my orders, but it does not qualify as a slave.

We still have yet to find that line between
artificial intelligence that has no rights because it is just a (sophisticated) machine, and
artificial intelligence that deserves rights (because it is sentient).


Right. Slavery is not even on the table until and unless the issue of sentience is imminent.


I don't see why.

They've been predicting the loss of jobs (and the silver lining: leisure lifestyles) since the Industrial Revolution began. They predicted the four day work week more than a century ago. Still hasn't happened. In fact, in certain circles the work week has gone up.

Automation has never resulted in fewer jobs (if you allow enoghu time for a rebalancing of skillsets). It has always resulted in increased productivity, which means expansion, which means more jobs.

The world we live in would be almost inconceivable to an Elizabethan. "You have supercomputers that predict the weather?? What did all the weathermen on the news do when they lost their jobs to these computers??"

Well, they didn't lose their jobs, did they? We still have just as many weathermen as ever. Instead of one news station for a whole state, we have a dozen. It's just that their jobs have changed; they have leapfrogged off the advantages of AI to do their job (or a new incarnation of it) even better.

Nobody's lost jobs. Nobody's going to lose jobs. They'll just advance, from, say a Garbage Man who serves a community of 2,000 people to a Garbage-Bot Fleet-Pilot who serves a community of 20,000 people - which we're going to need sooner rather than later because the popluation is always growing.

Don't forget this economy and population growth that means there will always be more work to do. The reason for the bots in the first place is because our ever-growing economy will always have more work than there are people to do the work (which - along with reducing cost - is one of the drivers for automation).

I think you underestimate the future of A.I. bots. They will change the world big time.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think you underestimate the future of A.I. bots.

Perhaps. But I have the lessons of history on my side. Game-changing, disruptive technology comes around every century or two. Not one was resulted in the downfall of civilization.

All of them, to some degree or another, have gotten us to the standard of living where we are now, which is inarguably better (on average) than it as been - by any reasonable measure - than any previous point in history.

They will change the world big time.

No one doubts that. Positive change is still change.

 

[davewhite04]

Perhaps. But I have the lessons of history on my side. Game-changing, disruptive technology comes around every century or two. Not one was resulted in the downfall of civilization.

All of them, to some degree or another, have gotten us to the standard of living where we are now, which is inarguably better (on average) than it as been - by any reasonable measure - than any previous point in history.


No one doubts that. Positive change is still change.

I don't think you understand how advanced this technology will get. It won't be a A.I. robot carpet cleaner, we are talking about 6foot A.I. machines who will be detectives, lawyers, chemists. That is where we are heading. Free will will be our biggest decision ever and I fear the worse.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think you understand how advanced this technology will get. It won't be a A.I. robot carpet cleaner, we are talking about 6foot A.I. machines who will be detectives, lawyers, chemists. That is where we are heading. Free will will be our biggest decision ever and I fear the worse.

Ever look at some of the artwork from the 19th century, showing their fears of robot takeover?

Did you read Frankenstein?

Cautionary tales of unfettered technological progress are a staple of history.

 

[davewhite04]

Ever look at some of the artwork from the 19th century, showing their fears of robot takeover?

Did you read Frankenstein?

Cautionary tales of unfettered technological progress are a staple of history.

Haha good pic

I've seen a few movies based on Frankenstein so got the general gist. I watched a carry on movie the other day with two Frankenstein monsters, hilarious.

I think there will be an A.I. takeover, whether that will come in the form of a 6ft android I don't know. It will be based on the freedom we allow, do we let the androids off the leash?

Like exchemist says, it's the Garden of Eden all over again, and we are God.