Artificail Inteligence and Human Rights

[TimeEntrance]

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?

The OP asked about human rights and not about life rights.

Many atheists and agnostics it seems to me often get caught up in this game of the unborn (abortion) and of AI and AL (Artificial Life) that science can’t have any clue as to what biological species the unborn or an AI computer is. What’s life? they ask.

That’s kind of like asking “What’s the universe?” when discussing the earth.

Basically, life does not necessarily mean human. And if we credit DNA and genes with so much (including the heritability of homosexuality) then we must be able to figure out what species of life a form of life (i.e., organism) is. A computer is not a member of the Genus: Homo nor the species Homo sapien.

 

[Ion]

Yep, after the galactic abolitionist civil war.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yep, after the galactic abolitionist civil war.

I get the feeling you are being silly. But there is a plausible aspect to your answer in that extent ion of full rights to other humans has often times come after battle and civil disobedience. In the USA’s history white males had full rights and others hot full rights after a great bit of struggles.

 

[InJesusItrust]

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?

If I told a human that he will choose X tomorrow he can choose Y. Can a computer make a similar choice, or is it bound by the algorithms used?

There is no point in sending people to jail if free-will is an illusion.

 

[Fomalhaut]

If I told a human that he will choose X tomorrow he can choose Y. Can a computer make a similar choice, or is it bound by the algorithms used?

It’s a matter of belief. I think the human brain evolved and consciousness emerged as a very advantageous trait. From that, I see nothing impossible in a robot reaching and exceeding our levels of intelligence and consciousness if we give it the ability to learn, modify itself and progress.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I think that with polymorphic code, the computer is still a stupid machine that executes whatever coder is designed to. Polymorphic code would be the programmer’s design.

 

[wanstronian]

The OP asked about human rights and not about life rights.

Many atheists and agnostics it seems to me often get caught up in this game of the unborn (abortion) and of AI and AL (Artificial Life) that science can’t have any clue as to what biological species the unborn or an AI computer is. What’s life? they ask.

That’s kind of like asking “What’s the universe?” when discussing the earth.

Basically, life does not necessarily mean human. And if we credit DNA and genes with so much (including the heritability of homosexuality) then we must be able to figure out what species of life a form of life (i.e., organism) is. A computer is not a member of the Genus: Homo nor the species Homo sapien.

That’s a fair point, but is a human defined by their consciousness or by the method of their physical creation? Or both?

As I said upthread, it’s a real ethical dilemma, and I wouldn’t like to be the one laying down the guidelines.

 

[wanstronian]

If I told a human that he will choose X tomorrow he can choose Y.

Are you sure? Such evidence that there is, suggests otherwise.

Can a computer make a similar choice, or is it bound by the algorithms used?

A computer is bound by algorithms and (name removed by moderator)uts; as is, as far as we can tell, a human brain.

There is no point in sending people to jail if free-will is an illusion.

Not exactly true. The risk of a jail sentence is a valid (name removed by moderator)ut to the decision-making process. But it is an interesting point, and perhaps this should be taken to another thread.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

If AI become a reality, should human rights apply to them? Yes or no and why?

they wouldn’t be human so would not have human rights [whatever they are]. nobody would ever really know an AI because you could never know what it will do. its just a program, so could not be treated as human.

 

[Fomalhaut]

they wouldn’t be human so would not have human rights [whatever they are]. nobody would ever really know an AI because you could never know what it will do. its just a program, so could not be treated as human.

I think you underestimate AI research. We already can produce artificial neuronal networks with the capacities of 2-3 years old human kids, and the only current limitation is computing power, which is bound to keep rising. But I guess the fact that freewill and consciousness come from the soul and nothing else is part of your belief system, so there’s probably no point arguing about AI potential.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

I think you underestimate AI research. We already can produce artificial neuronal networks with the capacities of 2-3 years old human kids, and the only current limitation is computing power, which is bound to keep rising. But I guess the fact that freewill and consciousness come from the soul and nothing else is part of your belief system, so there’s probably no point arguing about AI potential.

when your current AI starts behaving like a 3 year old and bites your finger and sticks its hand in your mouth and does what it wants you can tell me more about free will.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Are you sure? Such evidence that there is, suggests otherwise.

You are holding a gun and someone made you angry. Do you have a choice whether to shoot the person or not? Is a rapist responsible for raping or is it inevitable?

A computer is bound by algorithms and (name removed by moderator)uts; as is, as far as we can tell, a human brain.

Where do new ideas come from? Creativity?

Not exactly true. The risk of a jail sentence is a valid (name removed by moderator)ut to the decision-making process. But it is an interesting point, and perhaps this should be taken to another thread.

It is unjust to punish someone for an action he had no way of choosing not to do.

 

[Ion]

To give them rights, that means give them resources and possibilities.
How can we know that some of them do not go crazy, like Satan?

 

[Linux]

I don’t understand why people are saying on this thread that Artificial intelligence implies either that it does not have a mind like humans do or that AI is intrinsically materialistic in nature. What difference does it make to the OP whether or not a mind is the product of a soul or physical events. So long as it has a personal mind like a human, what difference does it make to whether or not it should have human rights?

 

[wanstronian]

You are holding a gun and someone made you angry. Do you have a choice whether to shoot the person or not? Is a rapist responsible for raping or is it inevitable?

I believe that if a rapist rapes, or a songbird sings, it was always going to be so. I’d be happy to be proved wrong, but so far there is no evidence other than that of natural physical interactions. If someone can describe the means by which an individual overrides the laws of physics and chemistry by which their brain operates, to make a true choice, then I’ll gladly admit that my views on this are wrong. But in the absence of such evidence, the most efficient explanation is the most likely one. And positing some form of non-corporeal control over a physical organ requires some evidence.

Where do new ideas come from? Creativity?

Can you give me an example of a new idea? Something that has no precursor in experience?

It is unjust to punish someone for an action he had no way of choosing not to do.

Quite possibly - that is why I said it was an interesting issue, worthy of its own thread.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Laws of science are inductive. They have no final say. If rapists have no choice women should dress modestly.

Even gradual changes in ideas requires some new conception.

 

[Linux]

I believe that if a rapist rapes, or a songbird sings, it was always going to be so. I’d be happy to be proved wrong, but so far there is no evidence other than that of natural physical interactions. If someone can describe the means by which an individual overrides the laws of physics and chemistry by which their brain operates, to make a true choice, then I’ll gladly admit that my views on this are wrong.

How can you admit that something is wrong if you don’t have the freedom to reason.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I don’t understand why people are saying on this thread that Artificial intelligence implies either that it does not have a mind like humans do or that AI is intrinsically materialistic in nature. What difference does it make to the OP whether or not a mind is the product of a soul or physical events. So long as it has a personal mind like a human, what difference does it make to whether or not it should have human rights?

As a computer science student I say that a computer is deterministic. Even when programmed to simulate fuzzy logic it has to run the code imbedded in it.

 

[wanstronian]

Laws of science are inductive. They have no final say. If rapists have no choice women should dress modestly.

I’m trying to work out whether your final sentence there is tongue in cheek, or whether you really believe it!

Even gradual changes in ideas requires some new conception.

Maybe, but it doesn’t follow that that can’t come about by a fundamentally deterministic process.

 

[wanstronian]

How can you admit that something is wrong if you don’t have the freedom to reason.

This is a straw man - it doesn’t address my comments at all. Maybe you just weren’t concentrating. Try reading my posts again.