L
Linux
Guest
If AI become a reality, should human rights apply to them? Yes or no and why?
- Status
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I think a problem you would run into is that not every one would recognize an AI entity as being intelligent, but only acting like it was. As long as some one doesn’t see it as being capable of “Really” thinking and does not “really” having emotions I would expect there will be those that will treat such an entity as an inanimate object. People have done so in the past with animals saying that the animals either (a) don’t really feel pain so it doesn’t matter how they are treated(I think René Descartes used to argued that animals don’t have consciousness) or (b) don’t have a soul so it ultimately doesn’t matter how they are treated. These past treatments of animals may give some hints as to how people would treat AI entities.
E
edwest2
Guest
No. The Artificial intelligence could only act according to its programming. It could be programmed to have “appropriate” emotional responses, and even be able to connect apparently unrelated bits of data/information to come up with an idea, but again, only if it was programmed to do so.
Ed
- It has no goals other than what was programmed into it.
- It has no ability to feel emotions. Understand them, yes, if so programmed.
- It would be incapable of abstract thought that operates outside the parameters of its programming.
- It would not be alive in any sense of the word. It would just be a mimic of life at best.
Ed
L
Linux
Guest
I think the limitations you have placed on artificial intelligence is arbitrary. Whose to say that AI cannot have real emotions.
You say that AI would be limited by its programming, but so are we. If you believe in God then you would have to admit that we are also artificial intelligences. Our intelligence is not a natural occurrence but instead has been designed by another intelligence.
L
Linux
Guest
I see what you are saying. See post 4 and tell me what you think.
W
wanstronian
Guest
And sadly, in too many cases, still current treatments.
An excellent point. True AI would include the ability for self-improvement. AI is not the programming of specific responses to expected stimuli. In fact, I think the process would be remarkably similar to that of a growing human (and indeed, a growing non-human animal). We develop our selves, and our sense of self, through experiencing external stimuli. The way that we react and grow in response to the stimuli, is almost certainly governed entirely by the computer that is our brain. No non-corporeal (name removed by moderator)ut to this process has ever been proven, neither has a plausible mechanism ever been suggested.
Exactly; and furthermore, if God’s omnimax qualities are to be taken at face value, we are far more predictable to him, than an AI computer’s development would be to the programmers.
In response to the original question - it’s a fascinating ethical dilemma, and one we may well have to deal with in the next few decades. Not least the issue of what one nation might decide, compared to another. I for one am glad that the responsibility to deal with it will not fall to me.
Given that it is a deep ethical issue, I wonder how much value will be gained by posing the question on a religious forum, the majority of whose frequenters conflate ethics with the dubious moral values of the bible.
T
tonyrey
Guest
What evidence is there that AI can or could have emotions? I think you need to explain what you understand by emotions if the discussion is to progress…
There is a vast difference between machines designed by man and conscious, moral beings with a capacity for love, self-sacrifice and self-determination.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The alternative is to believe men are machines!
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
This looks like it’s saying that an AI would only be capable of acting within certain limitations. I think this may be true of metazoans and humans as well.
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
Machines would not have free-will, because they wouldn’t have consciousness. Math and Computer Science can only simulate choice.
Just because machine may pass the Turing test does not mean that it is alive.
Just because machine may pass the Turing test does not mean that it is alive.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
In order for human rights to apply to A.I., then it would have to be argued that A.I., despite being constructed things, had an indivisible/indestructible “core” (that which we normally call a “soul”) that could therefore arguably be capable of “Qualia” (which cannot logically be explained by a material collection made of parts) rather than being a “P-Zombie”.
The mistake that is often made when talking of “A.I. and human rights” scenarios is the presumption that “intelligence” or “behavior” or even “emotion” is what makes something a real “entity” deserving of rights and possessing an innate dignity. Not so. Qualia is what makes that difference. Even a P-Zombie, in theory, could have all the same thoughts, behaviors, emotive responses and triggers, as humans…because those things are merely physical and measurable responses going on in a physical and measurable thing (brain/body). But those things, by themselves, do not account for Qualia. Qualia, as described in the article, is not observable, not measurable, and even if–for the sake of argument–it could be observed, by definition it could not be made of parts, it could not be something subject to decomposition or destruction.
Since Qualia by definition is something mysterious, almost mystical due to being unmeasurable, scientifically inexplicible and (due to not being made of parts) un"build"able, it would be difficult to imagine a scenario wherein it would be reasonable to assume that something created with human hands had somehow “inherited” this mysterious and indivisible thing, when we well know that we (humans) do not have the power to even observe said thing (Qualia) let alone “inject” it into one of our own creations.
That is why most of us would be very skeptical of believing in a truly “living” A.I., no matter how many Turing Tests it might pass with flying colors. Not to say we wouldn’t be tempted, of course, to believe it was alive: An A.I. that could simulate human or even animal emotions would play with the heart strings terribly (as anyone who has ever felt sorry for a fictional character in a book, movie, or video game can attest, just because something is not really alive doesn’t mean human nature’s tendency to relate to emotional displays cannot be evoked); it’s the chief reason that I do not believe it would be a good idea to develop such a thing. Either we would let our emotions overpower our logic and begin treating lifeless machines like our fellow humans, losing our ability to distinguish genuine life from a simulation, OR we would obey our logic but then be conditioned to be desensitized to genuine human emotion (from which the A.I.'s emotions might be indistinguishable) which would bode terribly for our race. Either way, creating an A.I. that advanced simply wouldn’t be wise.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
W
wanstronian
Guest
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
Being able to generate a random number for a start. And I am not talking of a “random” number that is a function of background noise, but a truly nondeterministic output.
A
Anthony_V
Guest
Don’t put Descartes before the horse! Mind-body problem. There is no good reason for material to be conscious of itself, such as it is in the human brain. The real question is, how can we trust our sense knowledge? From a Rationalist standpoint, I have no way to definitely say my consciousness, “I”, is derived from material factors without presupposing the legitimacy of my sense knowledge (which, in such a case, I cannot empirically test). If we want to talk about consciousness as an entity, we have to start our disgruntled selves at cogito ergo sum. Or we can discuss Kant.
I must disagree. The presupposition of the Christian God is the presupposition that the human person is not limited only to material factors. We can only empirically know the AI to be constituted by materials factors, ergo the analogy does not hold. The deeper question is largely about the causal factors of intelligence. We can discuss them empirically, such as in neuroscience and even experimental psychology, but the task becomes much hard when discussing such a thing philosophically.
A
Anthony_V
Guest
Cogito ergo sum.
L
Linux
Guest
The original Qeustion is not about materalism. There is no intrinsic relationship between AI and materialism.
A
Anthony_V
Guest
Cogito ergo sum.
In biology, life can only be defined descriptively. In philosophy, it doesn’t quite fit within any mechanistic ideology. Click here to read up on some different ideas.
W
wanstronian
Guest
And what makes you think humans are able to do that? By what means are we able to overcome the physical workings of our brain and the physical (name removed by moderator)uts that influence it, to summon a truly random number?
W
wanstronian
Guest
Yes - my point is that it’s very difficult to define life, and therefore pretty easy to preclude the AI “person” from it according to one’s prejudices.
Should a created consciousness have fewer rights than a natural one? If so, why?
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
I don’t see why as human rights do not extent to other species of varying intelligence. And we share the genome of life with them.
From the religious perspective being “alive” or having life is not contingent on a molecular structure defined as a cell.
In the natural science, though, life is at minimum a single cell. Human beings have over 10 trillion cells supposedly. Most jointly connected.
Biologist list attributes of life. It’s their opinion of course. Not sure it’s engraved in stone.
Some of those would be organization, reproduction, ability to respond to their environment, and there are others.
Given taxonomy is now looking to genetics to help classify and place different species on the tree of life, I doubt they would place computers on the list irrespective of their use of electrons.
- Status