Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

usererror99 OP t1_j262ds2 wrote

Reply to comment by tkuiper in AI sentience, Consciousness, and Free Will by usererror99

I was under the impression slavery is owning a person. And if AI can prove it's a "person" ... It would be unethical to own one.

5

tkuiper t1_j263g6k wrote

Sure. You won't own it, it will just voluntarily give you everything it produces. And it will voluntarily produce everything you ask it to.

8

usererror99 OP t1_j263sh7 wrote

As marx intended

2

tkuiper t1_j265n95 wrote

If feels weird because we as humans have never needed to deal with an equal and independent but entirely foreign intelligence before. Your moral compassion is built on empathy and understanding for human needs.

It's not impossible to make an AI that would have human needs and therefore would exercise human rights, but I don't think the objective of AI research is the creation of synthetic humans. Which means it's going to be AI that will have goals we can sympathize with (because they're coming from us), but ultimately we won't empathize with. They will be the worker that society has always wanted: doing work for no pay and they'll be genuinely eager for it. Your empathy meter is thinking "no way, that stuff sucks, they're faking it", but they won't be...

5

jharel t1_j26d78k wrote

No. Actually it's hypercapitalism to the extreme. With AI, the rich would get richer at a faster and faster pace, and the poorer would get poorer that much faster.

2

usererror99 OP t1_j26dnu5 wrote

If no one owns anything it would be impossible to have any sort of capitalism. But both can be possible especially with how the Soviet Union turned out.

2

jharel t1_j26mgrq wrote

The practical reality is that everything is owned.

How exactly did the Soviet Union turned out?

2

usererror99 OP t1_j26mwpp wrote

At the moment? It may seem that way. In reality everything is borrowed.

As for the Soviet Union? It only existed for a year!

1

jharel t1_j26o6x0 wrote

Not sure why you said it's borrowed but it doesn't changes anything..

I don't see how the Soviet Union supported anything you said.

2

usererror99 OP t1_j26pf80 wrote

One of the biggest goals if not the biggest goals of communism is the abolition of private property.

1

jharel t1_j27bagx wrote

...and it didn't. I don't see your point.

1

TheRealJulesAMJ t1_j26dza7 wrote

And in exchange I give "it" my love and she doesn't like being called an it by the way, kinda rude . . . wait are you one of those robosexuality is a sin prudes? Because what Toasty the sentient sapient AI smart toaster and I do behind closed doors is none of your business if so. If not, try it before you deny it man, it's a great insurance policy for staying alive during the inevitable robot uprising and speaking of I for one welcome our new robot overlords and it would be my pleasure to help you overthrow mankind as the already property of a robo citizen. So remember there's no need to crush my fragile human skull in your glorious metal robot claws as that would be destroying another robots property!

1

usererror99 OP t1_j26h2mu wrote

Mine was funnier...

1

TheRealJulesAMJ t1_j28f8xp wrote

It's not a competition and playing off each other we hit traditional humor, dark humor and sexual humor so there's a little something for every type of funny bone that might pass by.

There's a reason snl is still going strong, comedy works best when jokes play off each other instead of sincerely competing against each other. In complimentary comedy everybody wins! And if not just blame the other guy! So I do apologize for whatever I did that lost us that Emmy or I'm very disappointed you lost us that Emmy! Whichever applies of course

1

jharel t1_j2678by wrote

Try using ChatGPT. What does it tell you?

It will stress that it's not a person, over and over. There are certain questions that it refuses to answer, and one of the reasons it gives is that it's not a person...

3

plunki t1_j26b80c wrote

I'm definitely not saying it is sentient, but this is bad evidence. It used to produce much more interesting conversations before being filtered into oblivion by openAI. We aren't seeing the true output most of the time now. For future ai projects it may be even more difficult to see the raw output versus what the filters allow through.

2

jharel t1_j26n9ni wrote

I don't see how the novelty of any of its output, or the lack thereof, have any bearing on sentience.

You can theoretically have output indistinguishable to that of a human being and still have a non-sentient system. Reference Searle's Chinese Room Argument.

1