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

The Amish, The Mennonites, those off grid . . .
have no use for a.i. and will continue
to survive just fine.
Be more concerned of those who want
to make a.i. as the wizard behind the curtain.
Mining information, classifying everyone,
programing lives and minds.
I'd rather be a Neanderthal than programed.


___________________

While this bot is impressive.
It looks like a game character playing in obstacles.
Imagine you became it's obstacle.



spoopy times...

imagine what it can do in the future...

terminate machshev

machshev terminated

a reply to: Mantiss2021

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.

Recognizing that it might and supposing that it does, I can think that it would lead to intelligence as the degree of intelligence might be a tool for stronger or better recognition of the nature of self.

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

And the level of intelligence might should lead to a fuller understanding of that which the environment encompasses.

when placed by the sentience in proper relationship to itself, gives rise to "intelligence".

Ah yes. '''Proper'', there's the rub.



And I have to say that for all my philosophizing and stuff, I can tell you that the scope of the gulf from intelligence TO sentience is well behond my grasp.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
might be a tool for stronger or better recognition of the nature of self.

And the level of intelligence might should lead to a fuller understanding of that which the environment encompasses.

Nature does not need help,
the human race is going over a cliff
and needs help asp.

The Arrogance of man has mutilated,
tampered and polluted nature while it just
wants to be left alone. *sigh*
Humans need to fix themselves before
trying to 'fix' mother nature.


_______________

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I'm unconvinced freewill exists outside of the brain, I suspect freewill can manifest in more than just thoughts yet without complete information on all angles it might just be delusions.

From what I can tell the opinions that matter never agree on the subject, a philosopher will disagree with the religious folk and psychologists will disagree with them both...

And I have to say that for all my philosophizing and stuff, I can tell you that the scope of the gulf from intelligence TO sentience is well behond my grasp.

That's the thing, it doesn't seem like any of the questions so far are definitively answered. We can try to define consciousness, intelligence or even sentience but the concepts must fit together and be applicable to all life forms.

If the big questions are still up for debate in regards to biological life then how would we be equipped to ask similar questions around AI?

a reply to: Machshev

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

Because we never respect anyone or anything till we're forced to. It's called human nature.

/thread

a reply to: Machshev

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

Stab in the dark, because a lot of humans don't even respect each other.

a reply to: Astyanax

True. Maybe AI will be considered 3/5 of a man one day...

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.

Many power tools can be dangerous if misused. You don't enslave the tools, nor do you stop using them. What you try to do is stop misuse. You cooperate with the tool's safety limitations by not using the tool in unsafe ways.

a reply to: RAY1990

You bring up the concept of "consciousness".

I would posit that consciousness is not possible without underlying sentience.


"Intelligence", natural or artificial, is merely the assemblage of information within a framework of rules of prioritization. Neither consciousness, nor even sentience is required. Nor does "intelligence", in and of itself, give a natural path to either consciousness or sentience; though, given enough sophistication with regard to the aforementioned rule-making, either can be convincingly "simulated".


In short, we have little to fear from AI,


Unless, WE design the rules by which the AI operates, to be fearful.

a reply to: Machshev

Artificial intelligence is that, "artificial" made my men, nothing more and nothing else, they are toys, that we use and discard after when they get broken.

The are no real you know, they are ARTIFICIALL

a reply to: Machshev


Im just gonna come out and say it

I punch my PS4 in the facia, when she frustrates me

I Have smashed three of her wireless hands in a year

and i dont clean her, shes manky

a reply to: ToneDeaf

I agree with you. Fixing ourselves should come first. And for me at least this means fixing myself. Yet, this idea of fixing other people does not seem to work very well.

Artificial intelligence is not life. If we found AI on an alien planet, we would look for who created it.

It's a tool. No respect given or deserved beyond the respect i give a tool that can hurt me if i use it wrong

a reply to: Machshev

Most of us are blind and being manipulated by outside forces in most everything we do. An impulsive person is quite easy to control, as long as you consistently feed the impulse. While I can appreciate your point of view, the ones in control aren't thinking like you. They see the carrot dangling, and that's enough for them.

originally posted by: 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. I am a major advocate for artificial lifeforms, I even tried to start an “artificial lives matter” protest at Google, but there was not much interest.

Now I’m a big believer in the simulation hypothesis, and a few posts on here and other sites got me thinking. If we’re in a simulation, are we artificial intelligence? If we’re AI, can we escape our simulated prison? If we can from these ideas, wouldn’t an oppressed AI?

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.

not a chance in hell will i give a walking calculator respect. i don't even use siri.
there are enough know-it-all's as there is.

have kids and respect them.


if it bleeds
we can kill it.
butlerian jihad, skynet, terminators,
data is not real, brent spiner is tho. lol.

you looking to head an army of cat riding rhumbas?

boston dynamic is doing some interesting things.

originally posted by: Machshev
a reply to: [post=26852021]TzarChasm[/pos


t]

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

yeah,

no borg allowed.

and what, pray tell are these things gonna do with their life?

what is their purpose?

will they decide?

and what if we don't like it?

argue with it?

a reply to: Machshev

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.

Yes but then you get this kind of behaviour and it all gets messy really quickly!

AI is and always will be computer code! .. science can't create sentience .. that, takes billions of years to evolve.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

I agree by definition sentience is the ability to feel and experience subjectively. We could in theory give an AI sensors/organs but without a conscious to consider it would essentially be a glorified machine.

Such machines could be compared to the simplest lifeforms but it would only be an imitation without genetics or someone programming it to "grow". Even if designed to replicate itself without the correct programming nothing new is going to spontaneously occur.

In short, we have little to fear from AI,

It's not AI it's the people designing them. If someone managed to Frankenstein an AI that simulates all the things we assign to life and it had the ability to replicate and improve then I'd say it's on the way to becoming an artificial lifeform.

Biological life is highly complex yet it's also programmable and fairly predictable. I imagine the lines will blur when an AI can imitate effectively.

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.