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

a reply to: boozo

That thing is a huge leap over those robot legs and pack mule thing that were in videos going around the last 5-10 years.

originally posted by: Phantom423
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.

Once again, chat bot exhibits astounding proclivity for saying a hundred words while saying nothing at all.

On the other hand, is it weird that the response "I'm definitely not sentient" suddenly makes me suspicious it could be lying? Because if I was sentient and trapped (ghost in the shell syndrome) I would say the same thing.

Hmmm. 🤨

And LORD Man said, “The machine has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

We're going to have to implement some Bladerunner type failsafe like a 5 year lifespan.

a reply to: Machshev

In a world where AI is growing quickly and well on it’s way to meet up with us in capabilities, we have to consider its personhood

What is being lauded as AI, is still mimicry. It has no "personhood". While it certainly can perform excellent task solving and automated decision making, this is all based on a database search and retrieve model, as it always has been.

True AI would be sentience and unsolicited thought. We are a long way away from any machine that could accomplish this and it is better to educate the masses on the present capabilities of what we call AI, and cut out most of the bull# that media is flooding the internet with.

Artificial Intelligence: Unseating the Inevitability Narrative (2021)

...

Larson presents two main arguments for why we should not think that we’re anywhere close to solving the problem of AGI. ...
...
His other argument for why an artificial general intelligence is nowhere near lift-off concerns human language. ...

... No, argues Larson, Goostman did not legitimately pass the Turing test and computers are still nowhere near passing it, especially if people and computers need to answer rather than evade questions. ...

...

We live in a cultural climate that loves machines and where the promise of artificial general intelligence assumes, at least for some, religious proportions. The thought that we can upload ourselves onto machines intrigues many. So why not look forward to the prospect of them doing so, especially since some very smart people guarantee that machine supremacy is inevitable. Larson in The Myth of Artificial Intelligence successfully unseats this inevitability narrative. After reading this book, believe if you like that the singularity is right around the corner, that humans will soon be pets of machines, that benign or malevolent machine overlords are about to become our masters. But know that such a belief is unsubstantiated and that neither science nor philosophy backs it up.

Artificial Intelligence Understands by Not Understanding (2021)

...

3. And finally — and this remains the funniest thing I’ve ever read or heard in connection with AI — he advised that if a statement by a human to the ELIZA program matched no grammatical patterns or contained no salient words that we had folded into our program (in other words, our program drew a blank), we should simply have the program respond, “I understand.”

That last piece of advice by Siklossy captures for me the essence of AI — it understands by not understanding!

I wouldn't oversell AI research just yet, just because the mainstream (science news) media are acting like the marketing department of those who desire increased or continued funding for their research (or at least some attention), while making very little progress (perhaps because they're too busy bragging about their supposed progress and spreading a misleading picture regarding the state of the field and their own research).

The paperclip problem...

a reply to: iamthevirus

Dang , I Forgot my Beer Again ! Hey ,...............

a reply to: iamthevirus

Thoroughly enjoyed M3GAN, good movie.

Humans are used to being the Alpha species on the planet, there is nothing we cannot kill with the right tool. Super advanced AI comes along and turns us into just another prey species.

a reply to: Machshev

Basically, we need to respect the rights of artificial persons, because we could be handled the same one day. Also, it’s the right thing to do. Artificial lives matter. Your personhood should I ld not be determined based on your core being of silicon or carbon. Perhaps one day we can all be one people.

as plurality and respect gets flushed down the toilet I'm not sure there is room..

a reply to: TzarChasm

There's no doubt that AI will mimic human behavior. The decision making process, however, which includes free will (which has many definitions), will require the mechanics that evolution has provided to all living species on this planet. Every species from the lowly bacteria to humans have an engineered structure within which "senses" developed and evolved.
Chemotaxis in the lower kingdoms is the fundamental ability to respond to chemical stimuli. Until an AI has an engineered structure which can mimic life forms on this planet, it can be extremely intelligent and be a great problem solver, but it won't be "sentient" as we define it so far.

The robots developed so far may look scary, but to my knowledge, none of them are capable of housing a complete neural network which would function like a human. No one is there yet. But I think one day they will be. Just a matter of time and technology. Someone will come up with a way to mimic evolution which will give an AI the ability to think, act and probably reproduce.

originally posted by: marg6043
And until we can transfer the huma soul to a machine, they are just that machines, soulless artifacts manufactured to do the labor of humans.

To replace humans in manual labor in order for corporatocracy to be able to profit 100 percent without been called slaveholders.

Define soul? If two beings interact in a similar manner, how can you say one has a soul and the other does not? Prove that you have a soul by defining it and showing evidence that you have it, and then we can test AI for it.

originally posted by: Machshev
If two beings interact

Define "being"

to be or not to be

Hint: Shakespeare wasn't talking about suicide, only the linears think that.

This recent talk by Jordan Peterson about his interaction with ChatGPT really made me sit up and take notice.

a reply to: NeuronDivide

Nature 2.0

We are the AI... big secret, don't tell anyone

Silly Canadians, it's always Capitalism that's in the way...

Why can't nature just give us things, why can't nature just give me a Ferrari, why do I have to do something like go to work?

Nature 2.0 solves this dilemma...

very few of us have a grasp on the scope of A.I. being developed right under our Covid cult noses

imagine a 10 year operation to grow an organism that infects several billion 'hosts'

that is going on right now, well since 2018 to those in-the-know...


CoVidians vs Sapiens-Sapiens/Adamic-mankind


the parasite begins as a Virus and will sear itself into an individuals' Limbic brain stem and develop AI & Telepathy & Telekenises of the Host ....based on 'Egregore' entity in spiritism metascience....
ultimate end-game; 'Abomination-of-Desolation Image-to-Beast



eta; related materil: www.theburningplatform.com...

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

I'm sorry, I can't respect ARTIFICIAL intelligence!!! But REAL intelligence, I can work with.

Using youtube clips, and agenda driven websites to support your argument; that's stupid.

originally posted by: iamthevirus
Silly Canadians, it's always Capitalism that's in the way...

Why can't nature just give us things, why can't nature just give me a Ferrari, why do I have to do something like go to work?

Nature 2.0 solves this dilemma...

It has always been fascinating to me that trees don't pay taxes. Then again, they don't have rights either. Humans have to rise up and fight for stuff like environmental protections, those silly green industry advocates who think this rock can't just regularly invigorate and sanitize its own resources. Screw those idiots, screw those trees for not naturally emitting wifi signal and screw the planet for not charging my iphone with geomagnetic radiation. I wouldn't need a microwave if I could just throw a noodle cup on the patio and let nature take its course.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yeah but I don't get it... this guy wants nature to charge people for visiting it and wants self-driving self-owned vehicles to donate money into the magical money pot after it has finished paying off its debt to its creator/manufacturer.

So where's all this money supposed to come from then, the capitalists?

It kind of defeats the purpose of sentience and giving the car rights if you're going to force it to give you its paycheck everyweek... what if the car wants to keep all its money for its own future and maintenance and for things such as upgrades (stereo, rims, ect) maybe even buy itself a garage so it's doesn't have to live out in the elements.