Robotic age poses ethical dilemma
-
It was "worker" not "slave" to be picky.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
This law would make robots subservient to human beings always regardless of the robot's capabilities.
Yes, it would. Quite appropriately, I think.
Tim Craig wrote:
At what point do you decide something is intelligent enough to have independent rights?
A manufactured entity? Probably never. How would you test for self awareness? Especially a computer that was programmed to mimic self awareness.
oilFactotum wrote:
A manufactured entity?
So "manufactured" is the critical quality? What about "artificial" lifeforms that are more akin the "traditional" wet chemical processes we're used to?
oilFactotum wrote:
How would you test for self awareness?
The only test I currently know of is the famous mirror test. So far the only animals to pass are the great apes and much of that is probably due to their close functional relationship with us so that we can reasonably interpret the nonverbals given off when the light goes on. As I said, I don't think failing that test proves an animal, or anything else, is non self aware. All it says is that the animal has the analytical facilities to recognized the image in the mirror as itself. A creature capable of communicating could convey whether it is aware of itself.
oilFactotum wrote:
Especially a computer that was programmed to mimic self awareness.
When does "mimicry" become as good as the original? Humans wanted to fly and originally tried it by mimicing birds. When we actually flew, it was by another method. It's still flight. And in some aspects, it's surpasses what birds can do. If you're talking about the crude ELISA attempts at mimicing intelligence, those aren't really what I'm trying to discuss.
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Perhaps the uncomfortable question is, if it's indistinguishable from 'thinking', then how do we know that there IS a difference ?
Yur'oe tinhknig of 'cpmotunig' in the retsirtecd and dveriaitve secne of the aviittcy wcihh is dnoe on or wtih mreodn eecotirnlc cpumteors. As I alsmot aylwas do, I was unisg 'cpumiotng' in the mroe bsiac sncee of cniountg and the relus by wchih ctnoiung ootpreains are premfored. But tehn, wehn you get dwon to it, taht is all a merdon ecoteirnlc cpmteour deos, it jsut does teshe tihgns ftsater tahn erailer mcaheniacl ctpumeors did. And, of csoure, tshee erailer mcaeniachl ctpueomrs to wchih I rfeer did nnohtig at all, it was the hmaun mnid dinog evyerhintg whcih was dnoe. And, by the smae tekon, meordn ecotirnlec cpumteors do not raelly do aytinhng; it is aaign a hmaun mnid dniog evyerhintg wichh is dnoe. Deos an etlercic psuh-btuton coalctular 'tihnk?' Deos a manccaihel psuh-btuton coalctular 'tihnk?' Does a sidle-rlue 'tnihk?' Deos a picnel and ppear 'tnhik?' Deos a mahncecail acabus 'tihnk?' If the Cenishe had invented a peowred acubas, wihch ddni't ruriqee a hmaun to mvoe the bttouns, wulod you say taht it 'tihnks?' Of crouse not! So, why do you wnat to inagime taht a mreodn eecotirnlc cptumeor can 'tinhk' or taht smoe hopathietcyl furute cptumeor wlil 'tnihk?' 'Ctpmutaioon' is not 'tkinhing.' Is taht ralely so dciiulfft to garsp?
A computer may not yet be as good as the human mind in pattern matching, but its rediculous to say that thinking is not computing. All you displayed here is pattern matching, and with the advent of quantum computers, I'd say wait and see.
This statement was never false.
-
Trollslayer wrote:
It was "worker" not "slave" to be picky.
Damn! How pedantic can a person get? :cool: Even I passed that one by ;)
Rhetorical questions such as this require the mirror to answer. Help yourself.
This statement was never false.
-
An ethical code (Robot Ethics Charter) to prevent humans abusing robots, and vice versa, is being drawn up by South Korea. [^] What would CP members like to see in this Charter? What legal rights should robots have?
Thats outrageous. Until we fully understand the human mind and consciousness we will not be able to create intelligent robots that deserve the same rights as a human. We can create a computer program that can seem intelligent and can seem to think and control a mechanical body of some kind but it is just software running on a computer. If I develop my own robot then I should be able to beat it with a hammer when it makes me mad. This also brings up an important point. What if the robot's software is running on my desktop computer and its controlling a virtual 3d robot body on my screen? I can tell you I wouldn't be going to jail if I deleted it or made it beat up another virtual robot's body. It's just dumb, It is extremely unlikely software and hardware will ever feel and experience the world no matter how smart it may seem.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
oilFactotum wrote:
A manufactured entity?
So "manufactured" is the critical quality? What about "artificial" lifeforms that are more akin the "traditional" wet chemical processes we're used to?
oilFactotum wrote:
How would you test for self awareness?
The only test I currently know of is the famous mirror test. So far the only animals to pass are the great apes and much of that is probably due to their close functional relationship with us so that we can reasonably interpret the nonverbals given off when the light goes on. As I said, I don't think failing that test proves an animal, or anything else, is non self aware. All it says is that the animal has the analytical facilities to recognized the image in the mirror as itself. A creature capable of communicating could convey whether it is aware of itself.
oilFactotum wrote:
Especially a computer that was programmed to mimic self awareness.
When does "mimicry" become as good as the original? Humans wanted to fly and originally tried it by mimicing birds. When we actually flew, it was by another method. It's still flight. And in some aspects, it's surpasses what birds can do. If you're talking about the crude ELISA attempts at mimicing intelligence, those aren't really what I'm trying to discuss.
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
Tim Craig wrote:
So "manufactured" is the critical quality?
Yeah, I would say that is a critical quality. Perhaps if we get our technology to the point of building Star Trek-like Datas or Cylons that would need reconsideration. The ramifications of immortal artificial life forms more intelligent than any human could ever hope to be - how would they not end up ruling humans?
Tim Craig wrote:
What about "artificial" lifeforms that are more akin the "traditional" wet chemical processes we're used to?
I don't know. Mechanical intelligence seems to be an easier task that creating an intelligent "artificial wet chemical" (biological?) lifeform. That would be a completely different issue in my mind. And that could even be more dangerous especially if it were self-replicating.
Tim Craig wrote:
So far the only animals to pass are the great apes
There was an elephant in the news recently that seemed to recognize itself in a mirror.
Tim Craig wrote:
Humans wanted to fly and originally tried it by mimicing birds
Humans learned to fly, but we are still not birds. Mimicing self awareness or intelligence doesn't make it intelligent or self aware.
Tim Craig wrote:
If you're talking about the crude ELISA attempts at mimicing intelligence, those aren't really what I'm trying to discuss.
No, I assume you talking about technologies that are decades away at the very least.
-
John, at the moment your reply is correct. But what if these robots are permitted to eventually develop "free-will"?
If a robot (or computer) becomes sentient then everything changes.
Anna :rose: Linting the day away :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
-
A computer may not yet be as good as the human mind in pattern matching, but its rediculous to say that thinking is not computing. All you displayed here is pattern matching, and with the advent of quantum computers, I'd say wait and see.
This statement was never false.
Pattern matching is coming on leaps and bounds as well. The algorithms are being refined, massive repository's of information are being built up and calculation speed is always rising. To say that machines will never reach the level of complexity and ability of a human is to ignore the pattern of growth your brain should be perceiving :P The debatable part is whether or not a man made brain will ever be able to truly "feel emotion" and have "free will", but then again its debatable whether we ourselves truly have that or are we just responding the way we are programmed to our surroundings like any other animal, just in a more complex way.
-
John, at the moment your reply is correct. But what if these robots are permitted to eventually develop "free-will"?
Ask them to suggest their own charter. Rich:laugh:
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Would it or should it have the right to defend itself
Punching bags are meant to be punched (not punch back) for training. What happens if somebody makes a robotic butt-wiper. Would that be considered degrading?
Red Stateler wrote:
What happens if somebody makes a robotic butt-wiper.
What sort of robotic butt would require wiping? You envisage oil leaks or something?
-
Pattern matching is coming on leaps and bounds as well. The algorithms are being refined, massive repository's of information are being built up and calculation speed is always rising. To say that machines will never reach the level of complexity and ability of a human is to ignore the pattern of growth your brain should be perceiving :P The debatable part is whether or not a man made brain will ever be able to truly "feel emotion" and have "free will", but then again its debatable whether we ourselves truly have that or are we just responding the way we are programmed to our surroundings like any other animal, just in a more complex way.
-
Perhaps the uncomfortable question is, if it's indistinguishable from 'thinking', then how do we know that there IS a difference ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Ilíon wrote:
Invincible Ignorance
Sorry I thought we'd left the topic of religion behind? :P
originSH wrote:
I thought we'd left the topic of religion behind?
Almost an impossible to do. "Religion" is about reality. edit: IF you were willing to actually thing about these matters, IF you were not content to remain willfully ignorant (thus, I said "Invincible Ignorance"), you would understand that the true things you said in your response to The Gnat's anti-rational post undermine the false things you want to believe. (Which false things but echoed the anti-rational nature of The Gnat's post.)
-
originSH wrote:
I thought we'd left the topic of religion behind?
Almost an impossible to do. "Religion" is about reality. edit: IF you were willing to actually thing about these matters, IF you were not content to remain willfully ignorant (thus, I said "Invincible Ignorance"), you would understand that the true things you said in your response to The Gnat's anti-rational post undermine the false things you want to believe. (Which false things but echoed the anti-rational nature of The Gnat's post.)
Like most things it depends on your point of view. I agree "Religion" is about reality, but I'd say its about the fiction created to deal with reality. But that's my own personal belief and I try to stay away from the Religion arguments. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs as long as they don't encroach on others. Back on to topic: What false things? I said: The debatable part is whether or not a man made brain will ever be able to truly "feel emotion" and have "free will", but then again its debatable whether we ourselves truly have that or are we just responding the way we are programmed to our surroundings like any other animal, just in a more complex way. Are you saying its false because it's not debatable? I didn't give any conclusions. Personally I do think that we will be able to produce something synthetic that will be able to "think", either directly or by producing machines sufficiently advanced enough to design it. As per my previous post, it's debatable whether this will be regarded as true intelligence or just a series of very complex reactions. But of course it can be argued that we too have minds that work on very complex reactions. Edit: As life has evolved it has slowly refined the ability to react to external stimuli, in fact much like how computers are evolving now. There is input, processing and output. The leaf is hit by sunlight (input) and it turns itself to face the sun (output), just as the sunlight hits the photo diode (input) and the motor turns the mirror to reflect the sunlight where needed (output). Currently our creations are behind the creations of nature, but they are following a similar route and so it appears it is quite feasible to keep refining and imp[roving until "thought" is produced.
-
Like most things it depends on your point of view. I agree "Religion" is about reality, but I'd say its about the fiction created to deal with reality. But that's my own personal belief and I try to stay away from the Religion arguments. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs as long as they don't encroach on others. Back on to topic: What false things? I said: The debatable part is whether or not a man made brain will ever be able to truly "feel emotion" and have "free will", but then again its debatable whether we ourselves truly have that or are we just responding the way we are programmed to our surroundings like any other animal, just in a more complex way. Are you saying its false because it's not debatable? I didn't give any conclusions. Personally I do think that we will be able to produce something synthetic that will be able to "think", either directly or by producing machines sufficiently advanced enough to design it. As per my previous post, it's debatable whether this will be regarded as true intelligence or just a series of very complex reactions. But of course it can be argued that we too have minds that work on very complex reactions. Edit: As life has evolved it has slowly refined the ability to react to external stimuli, in fact much like how computers are evolving now. There is input, processing and output. The leaf is hit by sunlight (input) and it turns itself to face the sun (output), just as the sunlight hits the photo diode (input) and the motor turns the mirror to reflect the sunlight where needed (output). Currently our creations are behind the creations of nature, but they are following a similar route and so it appears it is quite feasible to keep refining and imp[roving until "thought" is produced.
originSH wrote:
Back on to topic:
If you are willing to reason logically, if you are willing to think critically about what *you* are saying and (apparently) believing, if you are willing to actually pay attention to what I actually write (i.e. comprehend it, even if you do not agree with it) as I show you the errors in what you say and (apparently) believe, then I will be more than happy to be convinced that "Invincible Ignorance" does not apply to you. I will have time this evening to properly respond to your post.
-
Pattern matching is coming on leaps and bounds as well. The algorithms are being refined, massive repository's of information are being built up and calculation speed is always rising. To say that machines will never reach the level of complexity and ability of a human is to ignore the pattern of growth your brain should be perceiving :P The debatable part is whether or not a man made brain will ever be able to truly "feel emotion" and have "free will", but then again its debatable whether we ourselves truly have that or are we just responding the way we are programmed to our surroundings like any other animal, just in a more complex way.
Correct, part of enlightenment is recognizing that we are merely robots in flesh. At least til we work to be more.
This statement was never false.
-
originSH wrote:
I thought we'd left the topic of religion behind?
Almost an impossible to do. "Religion" is about reality. edit: IF you were willing to actually thing about these matters, IF you were not content to remain willfully ignorant (thus, I said "Invincible Ignorance"), you would understand that the true things you said in your response to The Gnat's anti-rational post undermine the false things you want to believe. (Which false things but echoed the anti-rational nature of The Gnat's post.)
Ilíon wrote:
IF you were willing to actually thing about these matters
I actually thing about ???
Ilíon wrote:
you would understand that the true things you said in your response to The Gnat's anti-rational post undermine the false things you want to believe. (Which false things but echoed the anti-rational nature of The Gnat's post.)
Hahahahahahahaha..... leaving out some details I see. Gnat, lessee, more name calling, this is your replacement for logic? Dismissal through simplification? And circular logic. Nice.... What is it that is anti-rational here? Besides your remarks of course.
This statement was never false.
-
originSH wrote:
Back on to topic:
If you are willing to reason logically, if you are willing to think critically about what *you* are saying and (apparently) believing, if you are willing to actually pay attention to what I actually write (i.e. comprehend it, even if you do not agree with it) as I show you the errors in what you say and (apparently) believe, then I will be more than happy to be convinced that "Invincible Ignorance" does not apply to you. I will have time this evening to properly respond to your post.
So you are the authority on logical reason now? Not only pedantic but arrogant as well.
This statement was never false.
-
Do you, at least and at last, begin to understand that my undisguised scorn for the "thinking" exhibited by the Great Scientific Minds is fully earned and completely justified?
Absolutely not.
This statement was never false.