AI Ethics

[sniffy]

Paranoia moi? If science doesn't define it then it defies definition. Science fiction it is.

Many things are set in motion the consequences of which are either dismissed or beyond our comprehension or predictability. This should be a legitimate concern. Of course the flip side of the paranoia argument as you hinted earlier I think are that benefits to any AI/human hybrid might outweigh the costs.

 

[Varda]

is it ok to plug off a really smart computer?

 

[Varda]

why the hell give rights to machines??? they will only 'need' them if we program them that way. it is ridiculous. we should only make machines to fill certain functions for us. Humans with mechanized parts of their body should have human rights.

why is it not ok to kill a person?
and why is it ok to erase a hard drive?

 

[Cybernetics]

actualy as OP i was praying to god someone would mention assimov who, i belive got the right answer

 

[Stryder]

It totally depends on if those laws are embedded by coding or learnt by an Artificial Intelligence. This of course is the main reason why the film I-Robot and stories similar to it tend to look at a system that "Learns" the laws where it's open to interpretation, much like you are asking in regards to asking whether a learning system has the right to sentience. Notice how our interpretations "differ", of course the likelihood is they wouldn't differ that greatly if we were all brought up the same, not being allowed to have opinions or free will, but being told what to think and how to think it.

I mention this because after all such "indoctrination" would be programming, much like the concern of if a law had been embedded.

 

[s0meguy]

why is it not ok to kill a person?
and why is it ok to erase a hard drive?

why is it not ok to kill a person? it is only not ok if you think that it is not ok, because there is no objective morality. We need this morality for society to succeed, otherwise it would be a mess and life would not be very nice. That is why I think that killing people is not ok.

why wouldn't it be ok to erase a hard drive?

 

[Cellar_Door]

If it has a sentient mind and can:

Excrete waste
Reproduce
Respire
Move
Grow, repair and mature
Make us of nutrition
and is sensitive to its surroundings

then we are bound by law to grant it full animal rights. Only humans have human rights.

 

[Enmos]

What are animal rights.. ? They barely exist.

 

[Norsefire]

Animals are basically mindless robots. Why should we give them rights?

 

[Cellar_Door]

Enmos -

What are animal rights.. ? They barely exist.

As oppose to human rights, you're correct. 'Animal rights' isn't a list of how animals should universally be treated, it's just the reason animal cruelty cases are brought to court. (See various laws on animal suffering).

Wikipedia -

Animal rights, also known as animal liberation, is the idea that the interests of animals, such as the interest in avoiding suffering, should be afforded the same consideration as the interests of human beings.[1] ... they argue, broadly speaking, that animals should no longer be regarded as property, or used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment, but should instead be regarded as legal persons and members of the moral community.[2][3]

Basically, with animal rights, you wouldn't be allowed to inflict a lot of suffering on the said sophisticated robot just because you felt like it. However, 'animal rights' is an ambiguous term, and it would really depend how much like an organism the AI machine was when deciding to what extent these 'rights' would be granted.
Then of course there's the fact that animal rights are not universal - many countries don't have any animal cruelty laws at all.

Norsefire -

Animals are basically mindless robots. Why should we give them rights?

Mindless robots who can feel pain, fear and happiness. But 'animal' is a fairly broad term; are you talking about apes or insects, kittens or frogs?

 

[Norsefire]

Animals aren't conscious or self-aware, so they can't feel anything.

 

[sniffy]

They can express suffering.

 

[Oli]

Animals aren't conscious or self-aware, so they can't feel anything.

Eevn plants show something akin to pain response, never mind animals.

 

[Cellar_Door]

Animals aren't conscious or self-aware, so they can't feel anything.

Aren't concious? Look up the word 'sentient' and then find me a source to back up such a moronic claim.

 

[Norsefire]

They can feel things, but they aren't aware of self, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Cellar_Door]

Not in as much depth as humans. However, intelligence is relative; a spectrum rather than absence or possession.

 

[Blindman]

Well I would never hurt a cause an animal to suffer. I will even side step to avoid crushing some ants if Im paying attention. Bu I would never grant even the smartest animal Human Rights.

We poor humans will most likely never know why "I think there for I am" is so profound.

Even if a machine should one day utter those word's it would be utterly foolish of us humans to give them equivalent rights.

Rights to multiply, rights to survive against adversity, right to rule and make law.. Rights to make war. What type of madness would that be on our part.

 

[Cybernetics]

If it has a sentient mind and can:

Excrete waste
Reproduce
Respire
Move
Grow, repair and mature
Make us of nutrition
and is sensitive to its surroundings

then we are bound by law to grant it full animal rights. Only humans have human rights.

WTF these prove life not sentience

 

[visceral_instinct]

If the machine was actually CONSCIOUS, full human rights.

 

[Echo3Romeo]

Excrete waste
Reproduce
Respire
Move
Grow, repair and mature
Make us of nutrition
and is sensitive to its surroundings

Fire?