Would an AI have a right to live?

[Tlaceceyaya]

Unless an AI suddenly feels emotions without outside influence or asks questions about its existence, then one could argue for its sentience.

Though, If the AI does manage to show emotion of any sort, then it's most likely due to the fact it was given artificially.

I can see no possibility as to how a machine of any sort would suddenly gain one day sentience by itself.

Only humans can have emotions, (Don't be a smart ass and say animals have emotions too. What I'm implying should be clear.) hence emotions are an alien concept to AI unless programmed or given by their creators.

Therefore, they can't achieve true sentience since most likely their very emotions are fake.

You act as though there is a fundamental difference between programming a robot to feel emotions and a human feeling emotions.

[Aghny]

I'd disagree. If you don't understand something, then you could be just as wrong as right.

so the earth continuing to orbit the sun tomorrow is exactly as likely as it stopping tomorrow, because we don't fully understand gravity?

Why so much strawmen ?

You are, in fact, exactly wrong. Scientific claims cannot by proven. Some philosophical ones (those of the more formal side of philosophy) can be proven.

Prove both your claims.

Aghny, are you going around pretending to be a professor again? tsk* tsk* tsk* Am I going to have to put you in your place again?

Any evidence to back up your claims that i am not a professor ? And if you can get me to be a veterinarian and a successful investor, i would seriously love you, not sexually though.

[New Rogernomics]

Depends what you define is possible with AI, it technically is non-life (being artificial); unless it has biological components. An AI capable of sentient thought could be grounds for it having rights over its continued existence, otherwise it is a computer simulation and cannot lose a life it never had.

[Zimmer Twins]

Hmm thats a tough question...
I think the AI would have to have at least a 65% score on the turing test in order to be able to be considered a creature seperate from being a robot.

Thy expectations are a bit high. Actual humans don't even score above 65%.
http://www.cleverbot.com/human

One sec thats the site I checked for the stats...
Ok then 63%!!!!

[Wamitoria]

The minute it achieves sapience, it should be treated like any other sapient creature.

[Zimmer Twins]

The minute it achieves sapience, it should be treated like any other sapient creature.

Until it starts to kill us with neurotoxin.

[The Rich Port]

... Dumb post, or THE DUMBEST post?

why is it Dumb well kill all the time.
we do not give the " right to live?" to all humans so why give it to a AI.

There's a reason murder is illegal in most countries.

SOME people may not respect a person's right to life, but that's because said person is most likely a criminal.

Until it starts to kill us with neurotoxin

If we don't treat it like a person, IMO, it would be more likely to try to kill us.

[Zimmer Twins]

why is it Dumb well kill all the time.
we do not give the " right to live?" to all humans so why give it to a AI.

There's a reason murder is illegal in most countries.

SOME people may not respect a person's right to life, but that's because said person is most likely a criminal.

If we don't treat it like a person, IMO, it would be more likely to try to kill us.
Until it starts to kill us with neurotoxin.

I was refrencing a game.

[Conscentia]

The minute it achieves sapience, it should be treated like any other sapient creature.

Until it starts to kill us with neurotoxin.

Er, why should it be treated differently to any other sapient if it tries to kill us with neurotoxin?
If a sapient entity decides to kill us with neurotoxin, we try to neutralise that entity.
Rights for GLaDOS!

[Camicon]

The minute it achieves sapience, it should be treated like any other sapient creature.

Until it starts to kill us with neurotoxin.

If it starts to kill us with neurotoxin, we should still treat it like we would any other sapient being, i.e. killing it.

[The Emerald Legion]

I hope not.

I'd pull the plug on the thing the millisecond it decided to do something stupid. Don't want any GLaDOSes or HAL 9000s.

And you're going to get past the angry mobs of Singularity believers how? Be a tough guy and kill them too? I doubt it.

Unless an AI suddenly feels emotions without outside influence or asks questions about its existence, then one could argue for its sentience.

Though, If the AI does manage to show emotion of any sort, then it's most likely due to the fact it was given artificially.

I can see no possibility as to how a machine of any sort would suddenly gain one day sentience by itself.

Only humans can have emotions, (Don't be a smart ass and say animals have emotions too. What I'm implying should be clear.) hence emotions are an alien concept to AI unless programmed or given by their creators.

Therefore, they can't achieve true sentience since most likely their very emotions are fake.

And what weight do emotions have? They are nothing more than a primitive system to assign priorities. Eating feels good, so you do it. Jumping into a thornbush feels bad... so you don't.

In any case, I just love how the Luddites and Bio-Chauvinists just assume they'd stroll in and destroy it with no resistance. For the most part, the people working on this sort of thing are the types who believe it would be of benefit to have it around.

Say you built the best car ever, someone walks in and starts trying to smash it with a hammer and when you object they say "It's a threat to humanity!" Are you going to just go "Oh... well that's ok then." No. You'd call security and have the loonie hauled away. The same would happen here.

Or even more likely... they wouldn't make it in to begin with.

[Genivaria]

Freedom is the right of all Sentient Beings. -Optimus Prime.

[Aghny]

I hope not.

I'd pull the plug on the thing the millisecond it decided to do something stupid. Don't want any GLaDOSes or HAL 9000s.

And you're going to get past the angry mobs of Singularity believers how? Be a tough guy and kill them too? I doubt it.

Unless an AI suddenly feels emotions without outside influence or asks questions about its existence, then one could argue for its sentience.

Though, If the AI does manage to show emotion of any sort, then it's most likely due to the fact it was given artificially.

I can see no possibility as to how a machine of any sort would suddenly gain one day sentience by itself.

Only humans can have emotions, (Don't be a smart ass and say animals have emotions too. What I'm implying should be clear.) hence emotions are an alien concept to AI unless programmed or given by their creators.

Therefore, they can't achieve true sentience since most likely their very emotions are fake.

And what weight do emotions have? They are nothing more than a primitive system to assign priorities. Eating feels good, so you do it. Jumping into a thornbush feels bad... so you don't.

In any case, I just love how the Luddites and Bio-Chauvinists just assume they'd stroll in and destroy it with no resistance. For the most part, the people working on this sort of thing are the types who believe it would be of benefit to have it around.

Say you built the best car ever, someone walks in and starts trying to smash it with a hammer and when you object they say "It's a threat to humanity!" Are you going to just go "Oh... well that's ok then." No. You'd call security and have the loonie hauled away. The same would happen here.

Or even more likely... they wouldn't make it in to begin with.

Well one can say that majority of the people aren't the ones working on something like this, nor do they support it. So unless the government and the army itself is providing protection, it is not going to be too hard. Then again, there is the matter of other countries.

Take the case of nukes for instant.

There might be collateral damage ofcourse, but sometimes a few have to die for the benefit of millions of others.

[The Zeonic States]

Freedom is the right of all Sentient Beings. -Optimus Prime.

"Humanity is the only pure expression of sentience" -Emperor Palpatine

[Sociobiology]

so the earth continuing to orbit the sun tomorrow is exactly as likely as it stopping tomorrow, because we don't fully understand gravity?

Why so much strawmen ?

no strawman you are confusing not fully understanding every aspect of something with not understanding anything about it.

You are, in fact, exactly wrong. Scientific claims cannot by proven. Some philosophical ones (those of the more formal side of philosophy) can be proven.

Prove both your claims.

better yet prove inductive reasoning using induction.

[Aghny]

Why so much strawmen ?

no strawman you are confusing not fully understanding every aspect of something with not understanding anything about it.

Prove both your claims.

better yet prove inductive reasoning using induction.

And more and more strawmen...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Sociobiology]

but novel reasoning cannot, and highly variable reasoning cannot be at a functional level, because said machine will run out of time in the universe before it runs out of possibilities.

I agree but that machine can refer to the human brain as well

but human brains don't do that, in fact they rarely produce more than seven contingencies, the brain can't handle more than that. The brain works because it is imprecise, and has a lot of assumptions built in. violate to many of those and it does much worse than a computer.
In fact the thing the brain is worst at is novel situations, but it still works better than any computer, at least for medium sized things on planets moving at medium speeds.


there is a really odd brain injury that produce that effect, were the person will sit at an intersection until their car runs out of gas because they are trying to compare every variable about two different routes, they can just go "fuck it" and pick one route based on one or two variables.

and that last step is the one an AI will need.

[Sociobiology]

no strawman you are confusing not fully understanding every aspect of something with not understanding anything about it.



better yet prove inductive reasoning using induction.

And more and more strawmen...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

yes read your source, then read your own statment

If you don't understand something, then you could be just as wrong as right.

this is a false statement, based on a false dichotomy, and an ignorance of probability.
pointing that out by moving the exact same logic to a different situation IS NOT a strawman.

[Bralia]

Unless an AI suddenly feels emotions without outside influence or asks questions about its existence, then one could argue for its sentience.

Though, If the AI does manage to show emotion of any sort, then it's most likely due to the fact it was given artificially.

I can see no possibility as to how a machine of any sort would suddenly gain one day sentience by itself.

Only humans can have emotions, (Don't be a smart ass and say animals have emotions too. What I'm implying should be clear.) hence emotions are an alien concept to AI unless programmed or given by their creators.

Therefore, they can't achieve true sentience since most likely their very emotions are fake.

And what weight do emotions have? They are nothing more than a primitive system to assign priorities. Eating feels good, so you do it. Jumping into a thornbush feels bad... so you don't.

In any case, I just love how the Luddites and Bio-Chauvinists just assume they'd stroll in and destroy it with no resistance. For the most part, the people working on this sort of thing are the types who believe it would be of benefit to have it around.

Say you built the best car ever, someone walks in and starts trying to smash it with a hammer and when you object they say "It's a threat to humanity!" Are you going to just go "Oh... well that's ok then." No. You'd call security and have the loonie hauled away. The same would happen here.

Or even more likely... they wouldn't make it in to begin with.

A minor correction: We don't eat because it "feels good", we eat because our biological platforms require energy.

[Aghny]

this is a false statement, based on a false dichotomy, and an ignorance of probability.
pointing that out by moving the exact same logic to a different situation IS NOT a strawman.

1) Probability is a chance percentage. Just because you have 99.9999...% of being right doesn't mean that you couldn't be wrong either. If from the wording of my post, you deduced that i was implying there was a 50-50 chance, then to clear it up i wasn't.

2) Read the definition of straman again. If you still don't get it, any argument against it that i make won't be of much use.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Freedom is the right of all Sentient Beings. -Optimus Prime.

“It’s just such ignorance which forever relegates you to the ranks of underling.” -Megatron

Sure a truly sentient/self-aware/etc. AI would have a right to live.
Now we just need to figure out where that point is. Hmmm...Perhaps if we built a computer to calculate it...

[Aghny]

Freedom is the right of all Sentient Beings. -Optimus Prime.

“It’s just such ignorance which forever relegates you to the ranks of underling.” -Megatron

Sure a truly sentient/self-aware/etc. AI would have a right to live.
Now we just need to figure out where that point is. Hmmm...Perhaps if we built a computer to calculate it...

It would result in the answer being 42 and mock our lack of intelligence to ask the right question.

[Occupied Deutschland]

“It’s just such ignorance which forever relegates you to the ranks of underling.” -Megatron

Sure a truly sentient/self-aware/etc. AI would have a right to live.
Now we just need to figure out where that point is. Hmmm...Perhaps if we built a computer to calculate it...

It would result in the answer being 42 and mock our lack of intelligence to ask the right question.

Talk to any computer engineer and they'll probably say that second part is already happening .

[Rainbows and Rivers]

there is a really odd brain injury that produce that effect, were the person will sit at an intersection until their car runs out of gas because they are trying to compare every variable about two different routes, they can just go "fuck it" and pick one route based on one or two variables.

and that last step is the one an AI will need.

Yeah, this is already a staple of AI programming. I myself programmed a very simple application for coloring the map of the united states which could dynamically decide on the best state to color next and what color to make it.

Withing the potential values of different outcomes isn't the last step of AI programming - it's the first.

[Aghny]

It would result in the answer being 42 and mock our lack of intelligence to ask the right question.

Talk to any computer engineer and they'll probably say that second part is already happening .

True