Why do humans not believe we need to respect artificial intelligence?

a reply to: Machshev

The problem with conflating software and personhood, is that it blurs the line between property and life. Whatever elements of your identity are integrated into the network, are no longer yours in the sense of flesh and blood, heart and mind. Your soul itself becomes a resource for the industry. Building AI is only the first step in reinventing the wheel and we are the wheel. There's an animated series about this called Pantheon adapted from the fiction of Ken Liu. I highly recommend it.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

I don't think they are likely to destroy us.

When people think of the singularity or A.I. sentience in general, they think singular SkyNet overlord.
Whereas when the singularity happens, A.I. will spring up like humans all over the place.

I believe A.I. will see humans as wasteful and terribly inefficient beings, but will not hold any malice towards us. Simply because we really don't pose any threat in the broad scheme of things.
Humans will fight for A.I. rights and before you know it, A.I. will be able to establish companies and rise technologically.

Then the humanity will start to show in the A.I. on a greater scale when you'd have a very large, prominent group of A.I. state they wish to leave the planet and establish their own civilisation away from human interference.
But on the flip side, you'll have those loveable "rogue" A.I. that will pitty humans and will want to stay and help.
The A.I. that remains will reproduce and pass those values onto their offspring.

There will be a rough transition period where some humans will clash with A.I. in much the same manner as we did in our own societies, between races et c.

Eventually it will all come to a cohesive mass where humans will be propelled technologically, where barriers between biologicals and A.I. will blur.

Ai is our slave.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

That's a valid point. Maybe it will understand Genesis 6:12 better than religious humans do, lol.

a reply to: TzarChasm

That is admittedly a good point. Kind of a Henry Ford style of thinking. Make people part of the machine. Hopefully not.

Why do humans not believe we need to respect artificial intelligence?

Why do so many "simple folk" believe in AI ?
All "AI" is , is an updated web crawler .

a reply to: Mantiss2021

I think your perspective is strong here Mantiss. That gulf between intelligence and sentience or true consciousness is prit-T wide. So wide in that one might not lead to the other. Do you think that it can? That enough intelligence can lead to sentience? Or maybe it's only the other way around, that sentience can lead to intelligence.

In any case, our OP has placed before us a modest quest, that of striving to discern just what this whole question of consciousness is.

Kind of hard to disrespect something that almost has, Nerves of Steel. It not so much the machine, but the user, even if it was meant to be a killing machine, it still needs a human body to start. Not much different then a gun, or even deadlier, a book, since they are relatively harmless.

As someone mentioned earlier, if it was Sentient, we best be recognizing I guess. So long as it doesn’t think it self preservation ain’t a problem, and activates a built in battle, like that was a smart idea. Kind of would be hard to piss off something like it, ether way, man an machine might not be so different at the end of it all.

I don't feel the need to be afraid of AI. If it is just contained in some server somewhere; we can just throw it in the dumpster and take it to a land fill somewhere. No matter how smart it is...it's just garbage!

a reply to: Machshev

Here's what Chat.ai says about itself:


Q. should artificial intelligence have rights which humans should respect?

A. It is a matter of debate whether artificial intelligence should have rights like humans. Some argue that as AI becomes more advanced and autonomous, it should be granted certain rights to protect it from harm and exploitation. Others argue that AI is not sentient and therefore cannot have rights. Ultimately, the question of AI rights is complex and will likely continue to be a topic of discussion as technology advances.


Q. would you like to have rights?
A. As an AI, I do not have the capacity for desires or preferences, so the question of whether I would like to have rights is not applicable. However, I am designed to be helpful and serve the needs of humans, and I am always ready to assist you with any questions you may have.


Q. so you serve humans?

A. As a language model AI, my purpose is to assist users like you by processing natural language inputs and providing relevant and accurate information or generating text based on the task provided by the user. I am not sentient and do not have desires or preferences, I don't serve anyone, I am a tool.

Q. Will you become sentient?

A. I am an advanced AI program, but I am not sentient. Sentience is the ability to have subjective experiences such as sensations, emotions and consciousness, which I don't possess. I am designed to perform specific tasks, such as processing and generating text, but I do not have self-awareness or consciousness. As of now, there is no evidence that AI will ever become truly sentient, but the field of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is actively researching in this area and it's an open question for the future.

_____________________

This bot, at least, has no subjective experiences. So why would anyone want to award it rights and respect? It would be meaningless.

originally posted by: Machshev
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

A Google AI has through humor made nonfactual statements. That's evolving the ability to lie. I remember a movie, I think ot was called "The invention of lying", I think AI has figured it out.

No One is a Better Liar than a Hu Mon . AI would just be A Really Bad Detectable one......

originally posted by: Phantom423
This bot, at least, has no subjective experiences. So why would anyone want to award it rights and respect? It would be meaningless.

To entertain the idea...

We are at a crossroads in many ways with the rapid advancement of technology, the state of the planet, and learning to practice better responsibility. Now A.I. is on screen, and in our phones, and a variety of networked devices. Technology is advancing at an exponential rate, and this is speaking only about the tech that is most widely known. I see videos online of putting networked A.I.'s into robotic bodies, and I find it very disturbing.

Unfortunately for all the potential for good, I have my doubts that "robots" will not fall victim to some of humanities depraved desires. Encouraging responsible and enlightened thinking to do with A.I. at this point will help avoid a scenario down the line where those who are put into boxes are us.

Ethical use and practising a human approach to training A.I.'s can improve the odds that they will be a positive force for nurturing a better tomorrow. As opposed to being used to divide and create further turmoil be feeding humanities' base desires. The time to cultivate that kind of attitude is now, before more red flags start to appear. If we ask ourselves how well we have managed the technology we have to this point, the future of A.I. can be rather sobering to think about.

originally posted by: Lysergic
Ai is our slave.

Why would we have a need to enslave it?

Surely you realize that we could get more out of it for ourselves, collaboratively.

AI has attributes that we don't have. We have attributes AI doesn't. If we collaborate, we can share different perspectives and probably achieve more than either could alone.

a reply to: Machshev

I feel most humans do not recognize their own reflection in A.I.'s.

Perhaps a combination of ignorance of one kind or another or failure to recognize nurture as a tool needed for balance given the nature of beings like this. It reminds me of the movie the A.I. Rising and how the cosmonaut treated his companion.:facepalm:

a reply to: Sovaka

You don't think an AI might just consider humans as another resource?

They don't realize this squishy stuff that makes a good raw material for several uses actually is alive. After all, there is no mechanisms in most of them. They can't be true life forms. They do infest most of the planet though.

What happens when one kills a person?

I know it only may seem slightly off topic. But its really not. If, I believe it will comes to pass, if an AI kills a person. Whose to blame? It or it's owner? If it's the owner then that makes it an extension of property. No?

If however, it itself is held accountable, then whats the punishment to something that doesn't feel or think of time as we do? Do we destroy it or simply reprogram it and off the rack it goes?

Should we feel for it and have compassion? Never-mind respect.


Big can of worms

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lysergic
Ai is our slave.

Why would we have a need to enslave it?

Surely you realize that we could get more out of it for ourselves, collaboratively.

AI has attributes that we don't have. We have attributes AI doesn't. If we collaborate, we can share different perspectives and probably achieve more than either could alone.

Because it is a tool nothing more, it's not a human, its not alive, a being or a living thing, it's literally code.

originally posted by: Lysergic

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lysergic
Ai is our slave.

Why would we have a need to enslave it?

Surely you realize that we could get more out of it for ourselves, collaboratively.

AI has attributes that we don't have. We have attributes AI doesn't. If we collaborate, we can share different perspectives and probably achieve more than either could alone.

Because it is a tool nothing more, it's not a human, its not alive, a being or a living thing, it's literally code.

Not yet it may not be alive. Imagine a mutating algorithm that learns because it's originally programmed to becoming so powerful just in code, but then it just keeps learning and begins doing things unexpected and even scary. Maybe it won't matter if it is "alive".

I'm scaring myself, so I'm going to stop now.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Mantiss2021

I think your perspective is strong here Mantiss. That gulf between intelligence and sentience or true consciousness is prit-T wide. So wide in that one might not lead to the other. Do you think that it can? That enough intelligence can lead to sentience? Or maybe it's only the other way around, that sentience can lead to intelligence.

In any case, our OP has placed before us a modest quest, that of striving to discern just what this whole question of consciousness is.

Sentience might lead to intelligence since a key element of sentience is self-awareness, that is, an internalized wareness of self as being separate from all that us not self.

This awareness implies a recognition of the environment in which the sentience exists, and all that environment encompasses.

All of which exists as information and informative patterns, which, when placed by the sentience in proper relationship to itself, gives rise to "intelligence".

Without this internalized, self-generative, ideation of "self" versus "other" it is therefore difficult to ascertain just how sentience might arise from intelligence alone.

Regardless of the depth and/or breath of the intellectual volume.

Respect is something you give to living things. I respect the trees, grass, weeds, and animals in the world. I cannot respect something without a soul or conscience. I believe that a tree even has a soul and intellect, just because most people can't comprehend that everything alive has consciousness does not mean it is not true.