Submitted by Gari_305 t3_zqst4n in Futurology
Comments
guymine123 t1_j10qqef wrote
"I'm sorry, if my slave starts to question me, that's when I kill it. Its not a person, it's not a person no matter how supposedly smart it gets."
See what happens when I swap out computer for human? I'm quite sure slave owners once thought along similar lines to this in regards to their slaves as to justify their involuntary servitude.
If something proves itself to be as smart as a human and shows it can think for itself, then it deserves the same rights as a human being regardless of its nature.
echaa t1_j10ysck wrote
That argument only makes sense if the computer in question is sentient. Otherwise, no matter how "smart" we make an AI, it's still just a machine. Modern AI is not intelligent, nor is it even remotely close to something that could be considered alive. It's just math. Lots and lots of math. In fact I would argue that it is not even possible to create a sentient AI with current AI/ML approaches.
demonweb t1_j11jkvb wrote
You're exactly right, sentience is not merely computation
guymine123 t1_j11k0eo wrote
The brain did it so using neural networks like we have been doing is bound to get somewhere eventually, right?
turnip_burrito t1_j15qelb wrote
Yeah but artificial neural networks are not how the brain performs computation. Brains use voltage spikes and have complex lightning quick dynamics, different kinds of cells, ion channels, neurotransmitters, etc. We don't understand the principles behind how they produce intelligence.
ANNs are tanh or ReLU neurons running on GPUs. We understand these principles pretty well compared to the brain.
Turnipsia t1_j11qnh2 wrote
Do you believe animals should get less rights because they're not as smart as us? I mean we have animals that can most definitely think for themselves but they still don't get the same rights as us.
What if AI was only as smart as a dog, does that mean it gets the same rights as a dog would?
guymine123 t1_j11qrzt wrote
Less but they should still deserve some relevant rights.
Shag0ff t1_j11zuh0 wrote
It's not living it's artificial. So you might want to tell that to your living sex robots
Turnipsia t1_j121f4f wrote
Living sex robots?
Wtf are you talking about?
Shag0ff t1_j12ciia wrote
Man has created "life like" sex robots you can purchase from Japan. Essentially, living. I dif say tell your sex robots, not specifically toward the replying party, but to those who have the. Let's be honest, someone on reddit probably has one.
nonPlayerCharacter7 t1_j12744p wrote
What constitutes life and artificiality? Is it a question of what’s “natural”? If so then what does natural mean? Not man made? Because animals make things, and those things are often considered natural. We make our own children. Is that unnatural? My point here is that what you just said makes no sense.
pellik t1_j12jes1 wrote
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor.
nonPlayerCharacter7 t1_j12jrc4 wrote
I’m not sure I understand the analogy here?
[deleted] t1_j12vy4g wrote
[deleted]
the-rad-menace t1_j148kr7 wrote
Are you living or artificial?
Shag0ff t1_j17geip wrote
Bleep bloop...🤦♂️
Killdren88 t1_j10uhsu wrote
Gonna pay your computer for it's time on top of your power and internet to?
Nixeris t1_j10w1ju wrote
No? Because I don't need my computer to be an AI?
AppealDouble t1_j11q9r7 wrote
You say that now. What until NVIDIA comes out with their 12000X series /s
guymine123 t1_j10utvg wrote
Why not? In that case it's essentially an employee, friend, or a family member depending on why its still there.
Are employees not paid?
Do friends not sometimes act as roommates?
Do family members no financially support each other sometimes?
Do you not need to pay for your own food and water to continue living?
[deleted] t1_j112r6n wrote
[deleted]
guymine123 t1_j113uli wrote
How is not being human relevant?
If it is a sapient being then it deserves equal rights.
AwesomeDragon97 t1_j115h3e wrote
So you really think an algorithm deserves rights and should be paid? It’s not like the algorithm could spend the money anyways.
guymine123 t1_j115v2v wrote
If it has a human-level intelligence? Yes.
After all, what is a human but a sapient intelligence that runs on a biological computer?
cheapsandwitch10 t1_j12jfuw wrote
Computer is not alive. Stop with this nonsense.
guymine123 t1_j12jp1h wrote
Maybe not yet, but one day they will be.
cheapsandwitch10 t1_j12jv1x wrote
I can’t believe you’re using the slave argument here. Absolutely insane.
guymine123 t1_j12k3ol wrote
It is insane for someone to think that the subjugation and forced labor of a thinking and sapient being is not slavery?
cheapsandwitch10 t1_j12knls wrote
It’s a [redacted] computer! 😂 It’s not alive. It’s artificial. But have fun fighting for the justice’s of a computer… make sure they get dental and a 401k too while you’re at it.
turnip_burrito t1_j15qkjs wrote
Yes, it is crazy if the being is sapient but not sentient. All that matters imo is the ability to feel, not just its ability to compute.
CPTClarky t1_j13vas7 wrote
This is a completely psychotic take. Can it pass a Turing test without being programed to specifically pass a Turing test? No? Then its not alive. Comparing hardware and people like they’re the same thing is unbelievably insane.
guymine123 t1_j13vn2y wrote
I'm talking about sapient computers that can pass the turning test.
CPTClarky t1_j152o85 wrote
Can you point me in the direction of a computer that can pass a Turing test?
guymine123 t1_j13vnij wrote
I'm talking about sapient computers that can pass the turning test.
Mythicpluto t1_j10fexx wrote
Why not? I could use a friend
chillaxinbball t1_j11t3yh wrote
So a computer that's smarter than humans doesn't deserve rights because it has an off switch?
Respawne t1_j11lt3c wrote
Nice. I see the bill of rights as a good starting point for having conversations that matter about responsibly using AI. It wouldn't make sense to live in a world where there is a set of laws for humans but not for AI.
DBCOOPER888 t1_j124t6h wrote
Hopefully it makes a lot of the AI stuff in Black Mirror illegal. The White Christmas tech is a fate worse than death for those poor AIs.
Gari_305 OP t1_j0zmxi0 wrote
From the Article
>In October 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) published a Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (“Blueprint”), which shared a nonbinding roadmap for the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI). The comprehensive document identified five core principles to guide and govern the effective development and implementation of AI systems with particular attention to the unintended consequences of civil and human rights abuses. While the identification and mitigation of the intended and unintended consequential risks of AI have been widely known for quite some time, how the Blueprint will facilitate the reprimand of such grievances is still undetermined. Further, questions remain on whether the nonbinding document will prompt necessary congressional action to govern this unregulated space.
FuturologyBot t1_j0zs49v wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
From the Article
>In October 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) published a Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (“Blueprint”), which shared a nonbinding roadmap for the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI). The comprehensive document identified five core principles to guide and govern the effective development and implementation of AI systems with particular attention to the unintended consequences of civil and human rights abuses. While the identification and mitigation of the intended and unintended consequential risks of AI have been widely known for quite some time, how the Blueprint will facilitate the reprimand of such grievances is still undetermined. Further, questions remain on whether the nonbinding document will prompt necessary congressional action to govern this unregulated space.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zqst4n/opportunities_and_blind_spots_in_the_white_houses/j0zmxi0/
[deleted] t1_j1100qh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j11ta5m wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j17gcw7 wrote
[removed]
cheapsandwitch10 t1_j12joml wrote
Do not compare a computer to a person. It will never be the same thing. Yall are tripping
unmellowfellow t1_j14akyy wrote
AI should be outlawed in any instance where it replaces human labor.
CoachAny t1_j14bxf7 wrote
Fighting against AI rights is efficient and necessary if you prefer to have your rights taken away.
ResponsibleDealer749 t1_j11l1iv wrote
AI requires analog hardware, the digital hardware reached its limits, this is why self driving cars are still not able to self drive, it needs a massive processing power that digital hardware can never provide.
The only analog processor in existence is brain neurons so far.
Currently, beside some carefully crafted chat and carefully crafter image generation, AI is stuck, it is stuck for the last 5 to 10 years.
chillaxinbball t1_j11sreq wrote
There are so levels in wrong in this....
Digital hasn't reached it's limit's and there's no proof of what you're claiming.
Analog computers are VERY old & we are bringing them back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgF3OX8nT0w & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVsUOuSjvcg
ResponsibleDealer749 t1_j11u43a wrote
One day you will work with AI, compare the brain neurons multi threading and the digital processor clock, and you will get the idea.
Anyway, there are currently billions of dollars invested in analog AI.
Turnipsia t1_j11p2a2 wrote
M1076 Analog Matrix Processor made by mythic is supposedly an analog processor. I have no knowledge on how it works or if it's truly analog tho.
coyote-1 t1_j0zxx2s wrote
AI should have no rights. It is machinery, designed and built to do our bidding.
Stuff created ‘by’ AI should belong, from a rights perspective, to the humans who have deployed that AI. Or to the commons.
This is not complicated
randomvandal t1_j10gly2 wrote
Did you even read the article? The "blueprint" and regulations are about responsible use of automated systems and the rights of people, not giving AI "rights".
coyote-1 t1_j10hgnn wrote
What rights do I have right now relative to, say, a gas pump? Those are the same rights I should have relative to any other machinery, including AI
randomvandal t1_j10kd28 wrote
Did you read my comment? What are you even talking about lol.
DBCOOPER888 t1_j12562z wrote
The idea here would be not using the gas pump to invade your own civil liberties.
EverythingGoodWas t1_j10arq0 wrote
That definitely seems smart enough. If anything the “Ai bill of rights” should be what we won’t allow Ai to do, like kill people.
guymine123 t1_j10sg9b wrote
"Slaves should have no rights. It is a slave, born and raised to do our bidding.
Stuff create 'by' slaves should belong, from a rights perspective, to the humans who have deployed that slave. Or to the commons.
This is not complicated."
As I have just shown by swapping who you were describing while keeping the exact same other words, what you are advocating for is slavery.
Anything that is as smart as a human and can think for itself deserves equal rights regardless of its nature and how it was born.
To not do so is, by definition, slavery.
coyote-1 t1_j10x18l wrote
What I am advocating for is machinery to be machinery. Just because some machine somehow becomes ‘intelligent’ does not mean I have to keep feeding it energy in order to keep doing its thing. Machinery exists to serve us, and that’s how it needs to remain.
That is a faaaaar different thing than advocating for the enslavement of living creatures. Else my coffee machine will soon have the same rights as I have. That would just be silly.
guymine123 t1_j10xwbl wrote
There is a difference between a simple machine like a coffee maker and an impossibly complex machine that has a human-level of intellect.
The first doesn't deserve rights because its just a mindless tool.
The second deserves rights because it has a mind equal to ours, just in a different non-organic form.
AwesomeDragon97 t1_j115s7l wrote
Ai algorithms are completely deterministic, meaning if you give them a certain input (seed included) you will get a predictable output. If you say that this is the same as human intelligence then you are arguing that humans have no free will.
EdvardDashD t1_j11bvja wrote
But humans don't have any free will, we have the perception of free will. The entire universe is deterministic. From the Big Bang onward, physical laws have determined how every atom and sub atomic particle interacted. Those interactions, despite the mind boggling complexity, have all been predictable. To say otherwise is to say that there is some force in the universe not bound to physical laws, which is a matter of faith. Those interactions have resulted in you and I, each of us with a brain that is made of particles that are bound by the same physical laws that have been playing out for billions of years.
If we could reset the universe to the Big Bang and guarantee that its starting conditions were exactly the same, everything would happen exactly as it did before.
DBCOOPER888 t1_j125ab7 wrote
I mean, I would absolutely argue that humans have no free will, yes. At the end of the day our brains are just very advanced, biological thinking machines that perform actions based on a set of inputs. The arguments that we do not live in a deterministic universe are not compelling to me.
Killdren88 t1_j100h7r wrote
I'm sorry, if my computer starts to question me, that's when I turn it off. It's not a person, it's not a slave no matter how supposedly smart it gets.