Round 2. Semperfortis v Simulacra: The PC of AI (or humanly-challenged, if you prefer)

The topic for this debate is "Humans must not create True Artificial Intelligence until comprehensive ethical standards exist to protect it".

Semperfortis will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Simulacra will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


A post may not be any longer than 5,500 characters, using the ATS character counter.
Closing posts may not be any longer than 3,500 characters.

This character limit includes all board code, links, etc.
Extra characters will be deleted from the end of your post.

Please notice that the character counter counts backwards. If for some reason your character counter won't let you post a full 5,500 characters in one post, make a second post to finish your 5,500, and then u2u me and let me know.


Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.


Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.


Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate. Limited grace periods may be allowed if I am notified in advance.


Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

When this thread becomes unlocked, you may proceed.

Semper’s Opening


DEBATE TITLE:
"Humans must not create True Artificial Intelligence until comprehensive ethical standards exist to protect it".

For the sake of continuity, I will treat the term “True Artificial Intelligence” as that mechanical, programmable intellect capable of the same sentience as Homo sapiens; self aware and capable of independent learning.

In this debate I will discuss the dangers inherent in such an intellect without moral standards or ethical guidelines.

I intend on exemplifying the possible tragic results in a combination of a learning intellect and an inability to “feel” the necessity for ethical behavior.

I will also show the possible disastrous results of an advanced intellect under the control of any one individual or groups of individuals without the security of ethical safeguards in place.

Artificial Intellect is best defined as:

An artificial intellect (or "artilect"), according to Dr. Hugo de Garis, is a computer intelligence superior to that of humans in one or more spheres of knowledge together with an implicit will to use the intelligence.
whatis.techtarget.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> whatis.techtarget.com...

Of course this definition varies from expert to expert.

Ethics is defined as:

1. A set of principles of right conduct.
2. A theory or a system of moral values.

And Morals:

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
dictionary.reference.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> dictionary.reference.com...

Taking those definitions into consideration, it is clear that ethics and morals are standards that belong exclusively to the human species.

Still throughout history we find many instances where there have been those in power that have for one reason or another, been lacking in both morality and ethical behavior.

A true Artificial Intellect, capable of sentience, yet naturally lacking in ethics or morality must be regulated and controlled by those capable of ethical decisions based on good moral standards. Only then will there be some semblance of security in the use of such an A.I.

In this debate I will refer to studies that have been conducted in regards to mankind’s ethical and moral dilemmas. Those same dilemmas that will be absent in any A.I. if the individual that is in control of the A.I. is not guided by set ethical standards.

Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and Idi Amein.

Just imagine the nefarious potential of these individuals with control of an Artificial Intelligence. How much farther could they have progress? What control would they now possess had they had the advantage of an intellect with ultimate learning potential?

Having just eradicated a megalomaniac, Saddam Hussein, we must ever be watchful for these dangers in the international community. Without ethical standards in place, an Advanced Artificial Intellect could very well be put to use by the next madman with dreams of world domination.

Thank you

Semper

"Humans must not create True Artificial Intelligence until comprehensive ethical standards exist to protect it".

Once again Vagabond, thanks for this opportunity. I’ll make this debate an interesting one.

Despite the loose definitions Semperfortis gives of ‘True Artificial Intelligence’, they are unfortunately wrong. ‘True Artificial Intelligence’ is an actual term that is already prevalent in scientific research. It is further defined by Alan Turing’s ‘Turning Test’. Quite possibly, the father of modern artificial intelligence, Turning believed that in order for a system to have ‘True Artificial Intelligence’ an interrogation by a human must occur. In this ‘Turing Test’, a human being and a computer would be interrogated entirely by text messaging. If the interrogator cannot discern between the intelligence of the two, then it would be a mark of ‘True Artificial Intelligence’.

Now back to the debate question…

The clash of science and ethical standards has been an issue that we have seen resurface, but just recently with the Bush administration and Stem Cell Research. I will get to this topic later, but first a discussion of ethical standards is well warranted.

To understand the nature of ‘ethical standards’, one must simply do some slight deducing of the term. Standards of ethics’ is what we’re really looking at. The standards in which ethics are judged. But just who actually creates these standards? A question which brings me back to the Bush administration.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Chief John Marburger has been accused of aligning scientific research to political and religious beliefs of the current Bush administration. If it doesn’t fit the agenda, it’s disregarded. This is not a ‘conspiracy theory’ as written off by John Marburger when he was confronted by an esteemed group of Noble Laureates in February 2004. (Griscom, 2004)

What happens after this accusation? The Bush administration continues to propagate this scientific ignorance as illustrated by Amanda Griscom:

Marburger's superiors essentially confirmed, albeit inadvertently, the science community's charges. On Friday, President Bush let go two members of his Council on Bioethics -- a highly regarded scientist and a moral philosopher, both known for advocating research on human embryo cells -- and replaced them with three cherry-picked scientists more ideologically aligned with the administration's conservative anti-stem-cell-research constituency. (Griscom, 2004)

Remember, these are the same people that designate the ‘standards of ethics’. An interesting theme has prevailed throughout this statement, the demonization of Stem-Cell Research, quite possibly the biggest folly any ruling administration has ever supported (just short of the notion that the Earth is flat).

In fact, the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics (DoNoHarm) actually understands the scientific significance and supports the research of stem-cells and questions why the field hasn’t been expanded when research is showing positive results. Now what distinguishes these two groups? Could it be that one is driven by a need for scientific discovery and the other is driven by whoever supplements their income?

True Artificial Intelligence follows this exact model. Whenever scientific advancements are on the horizon, the political administration sets doubts in the public’s mind in order to fulfill the given political/societal/religious agenda. Remember a guy named Nicolaus Copernicus? He formulated that the galaxy did not revolve around the earth but formulated a heliocentric model of our galaxy. This idea is considered the starting point of modern astronomy. It seemed like a heretical notion that we are not the center of everything, the ruling authority at the time (The Catholic Church) certainly thought it was nonsense. What about a researcher by the name of Galileo Galilei? He vehemently defended this heliocentric model against the Church so that his research and ideas will not get banned and disregarded. It seems quite the paradox that science should defend factual research from ruling authority, however nearly 500 years later scientists are still struggling to validate scientific breakthroughs not with other scientists in the field, but the government they are ruled under.

Humanity has a great history of distorting the truth as we can see in science’s struggle with ruling authorities dating back as far as Euclidian mathematics. Artificial intelligence has amazing potential, however nothing can be done until the shroud of ignorance is lifted from the government (in this case the Bush administration) who applies standards of ethics that limit scientific research and fulfills personal agendas.

Semperfortis

“Artificial Intelligence”

Reply #1

Concerning the “loose” definitions my opponent suggests I have made, and their validity in this debate, sadly my opponent is operating with a singular mindset in a multiple faceted scientific hypothesis.

Truly the father of I.A. would be John McCarthy, the first scientist to coin the term.

My opponent’s reference to Mr. Turing is jaded at best and completely misleading in reality. Turing’s advances in computational studies were ground breaking, in the 1940’s. Admittedly recognition must be given, but also understood how far beyond him we have come.


Let me begin by again making my stance perfectly clear.

This is NOT a political debate. I will not respond to my opponents political baiting or references to politics in any fashion.

The title of the debate is clear and concise.

"Humans must not create True Artificial Intelligence until comprehensive ethical standards exist to protect it".

I shall remain within the boundaries of this title. Individual politics are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Having established several definitions and their application to this debate, I will now illustrate the dangers and possible pitfalls of an intellect, an advanced artificial intelligence, acting with no moral or ethical guidelines.

As a rule we all act, react and interact in society following certain accepted ethical and moral standards.
We know that it is wrong to murder another, to rape, rob and assault. Where we learned these ethics is not relevant, the fact that we have is. Yet historically there have been those individuals all through society that do not consider themselves bound by the same ethical restrictions that we all consider to be basic human behavior.

People throughout history have acted in ways abhorrent to us, both on a small scale and one of historic proportions. Imagine if you will those same individuals, the same identical lack of restraint, and compounded by the assistance of a vast intellect also without ethical restraint or moral compass.
The possible ramifications boggle the mind.

True Artificial Intelligence follows this exact model. Whenever scientific advancements are on the horizon, the political administration sets doubts in the public’s mind in order to fulfill the given political/societal/religious agenda.

Again, the title of this debate does not indicate specific restrictions as to the type, form or origin of the ethics referenced. We are simply arguing the necessity or lack of these ethics. The ethical standards that should be applied to any A.I. have numerous sources to include political, religious and socially acceptable norms to but name a few.

The fact is these ethics, regardless of origin, must be in place prior to the culmination or proliferation of any Artificial Intellect.

If there are those opposed to a certain origin of ethics that could be applied to the A.I., perhaps the scientific community as a whole can be responsible for the ethical and moral standards to be “programmed” into the A.I.



Wikipedia states that Ethics are…

Ethics (via Latin ethica from the Ancient Greek ἠθική [φιλοσοφία] "moral philosophy", from the adjective of ἤθος ēthos "custom, habit"), a major branch of philosophy, is the study of values and customs of a person or group. It covers the analysis and employment of concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil, and responsibility. It is divided into three primary areas: meta-ethics (the study of the concept of ethics), normative ethics (the study of how to determine ethical values), and applied ethics (the study of the use of ethical values).

Wiki

Using this a template, imagine an advanced intellect with virtually unlimited potential with out the controls of the “values and customs” accepted by us all?

Human life would hold absolutely no meaning for such an intellect; words such as suffering, compassion and empathy completely without merit to the Artificial Intelligence. That same intellect in the control of any person, or persons also lacking in those “values and customs”, without enforceable ethical and moral standards, would prove catastrophic to human development and our future.

The specifics of who defines those ethics are not relevant or overly important as long as they follow concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil, and individual responsibility. Those same standards that guide our lives as we each pass through this mortal coil.


In my next installment I will address the studies of the criminal mind and the psychological concepts of the human conscious as it relates to ethical behavior. This will more clearly illustrate the potential damages an Artificial Intelligence could cause without guiding ethical principles and in the control of individuals also lacking in those standards.

Thank you,

Semper

I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks on my character. This is a debate, not an insult fest.

When someone discusses ethical standards, they are discussing a political topic. Political forces influence scientific research and discovery. It happens. It's been documented. Ethics are created by politics. The government dictates what we can’t and can do. Our entire judicial system is a government organization. It just so happens that this government organization is also in charge of dictating ethics and how ethical standards should integrate into society and scientific research. Our ethical standards are just as valid as the current ruling authority at the time. Ethical standards change under each administration just as much as a leader’s opinions change. Science is static. It should not be held captive under the wind of fleeting government standards. Science helps humanity connect with their universe. It’s the only recognizable language in which our thoughts translate effectively with our world. This should not be reduced to the fragility of government influence.

And ethical standards are NOT morals.

Morals are instilled in individuals from a variety of factors, some of which being environmental, religious, psychoanalytical and economical. Not everyone is engrained with the same set of morals. What my version of good may not correspond to another person’s definition of good since everyone comes from their respective background. So it is an unfair assumption to say that everyone knows ‘not to murder…etc’. For example, a devout religious follower reads a holy text on a daily basis. For this person, the notion of ‘good’ stems solely from reading these holy texts. To be good, is to be a loyal religious man/woman, to disregard the religion is to be evil. One day a person comes along, rips the holy texts away and burns them. Now the religious follower remembers that in order to be righteous, he/she must kill the person who did this. If you did not commit this act, then you were not following the ordained right of these holy texts and of course are deemed bad. The religious follower kills the person because he/she did what he/she thought was right. For this person, his/her morals stems from religion, however it can vary for each individual. How logical would it be to have a standard of morals? Now how logical would it be to have a standard of ethics, one that dictates and governs not only yourself, but limits every scientific discovery?

Now unfortunately we don’t have true artificial intelligence yet, but I’ll discuss the next best thing: Playstation 3. According to Ian Pearson, head of the futurology unit at BT, the Playstation 3 is 1% as powerful as the human brain. He also estimates that the Playstation 5 will be as powerful as the human brain (Observer, 2005). This example illustrates the blatant point that there simply does not need to be ethical standards governing scientific breakthroughs such as this. The Playstation 3 is a pinnacle of humanities innovation and sheer potential to create computing power unrivaled to this day. This just shows what we are capable without the government restricting these developments.

On another note, people have and always will abuse technology. There is no stopping this. It has happened throughout history and it will continue to occur. Humankind created the wheel quite possibly to transport goods from one village to the next. It was then retrofitted with a weapon and used to expunge life off this planet. Automobiles were created to reduce our transit time. Now they are being stuffed with explosives and being used as deadly bombs. Computers were created in order to handle complex equations, now others use it to handle equally complex terrorist plans. With all the above mentioned devices as well the multitude of inventions not discussed, if this technology was engulfed in political debates on ethical standards (much like stem cell technology is today) most of this technology would never have seen the light of day.

Leave nonsensical government rhetoric out of my science. There’s a place for that, it’s called the political system.

Semperfortis Reply #2

"Humans must not create True Artificial Intelligence until comprehensive ethical standards exist to protect it".

First allow me to apologize for any perceived insult on your character that you may feel you have suffered. If my scientific approach to the debate insults you, I am sorry.

As for ethics being political in nature; wrong my valued opponent..

Ethics again:

1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

And

1.A set of principles of right conduct.
A theory or a system of moral values: "An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain" (Gregg Easterbrook).
1. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
2. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.
Online Dictionary

You have it backward my opponent, politics do not regulate ethics, rather ethics, or the lack of, regulate politics.

Ethics are created by politics.

Are you serious?

And ethical standards are NOT morals.

Please reference the above definitions. It would appear that the experts on definitions would disagree with you, as I do.

but I’ll discuss the next best thing: Playstation 3.

Again I must ask: Are you serious?
With the current introduction into the scientific community of the first working Quantum Computer, the Playstation is exactly what it is supposed to be, a toy. My forensics computer makes the Playstation look like an Abacus.

On another note, people have and always will abuse technology. There is no stopping this. It has happened throughout history and it will continue to occur.

Thank you for supporting my end of this debate.

Leave nonsensical government rhetoric out of my science. There’s a place for that, it’s called the political system.

I could not agree more.

Now on to the heart of why Ethical and Moral standards are so necessary in regards to an A.I. or any of our creations.

Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman, Soldier, Historian and Noted Author, wrote a wonderful psychological study titled, “On Killing” “The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill.”
Killology
In this study, Grossman interviewed literally hundreds of combat veterans, historical research professionals and psychologists to determine the mind set necessary for the taking of a human life and the natural revulsion the average person has toward that goal. A revulsion an A.I. would not possess.
Imagine if you will a machine, devoid of emotion, compassion, empathy or regret, programmed to kill, take over the control of the super weapons still in existence or to simply seize control of the world banking institute. Carry your imagination into a vision of an individual or a group that desires control of this planet and cares not how that is obtained, being in control of that machine, that Artificial Intellect, self learning, with ultimate learning potential and the innate ability to interface with other lesser machines as any such device would by it’s very nature.

Imagine the devastation and destruction that one such machine could cause in the hands of the wrong individual without some form of ethical controls in place.

It staggers the imagination.

On 23 October 1983 I was first introduced to the gross violence that one set of people can perpetrate on another. This was to begin a lifelong career of combating such violent actions.
As incredible and disturbing as the violence I have been involved with can be, it pales in comparison to what could be done with an Artificial Intellect by those with nefarious goals.
My opponent references terrorism. I will point out that terrorism is one perfect example that supports my position. What if an Artificial Intelligence were made available, with no ethical or moral restrictions to the same individuals that are currently attaching bombs to their own children to further their goals? What would the cost of such actions be?

Herbert A. Simon states in his autobiography that “With respect to social consequences, I believe that every researcher has some responsibility to assess, and try to inform others of, the possible social consequences of the research products he is trying to create.”

Enter the Ethics of Moral behavior to the creations of mankind.

Social responsibility, ethics, morals; call them what you will, it is incumbent on us and necessary for the survival of our species, to maintain control of our creations utilizing sound ethical standards.

Thank You

Semper

Simulacra has exceeded the time limit and will forfeit his reply. Semperfortis may proceed with his next post.

Semperfortis Reply #3

"Humans must not create True Artificial Intelligence until comprehensive ethical standards exist to protect it".

In comprehending what a “True Artificial Intelligence” is, or will be, depending on what one believes exists at the moment; different images can come to mind. The one guiding principle that I believe most will agree to, is that any A. I. will be an incredibly advanced computer.

What has mankind managed to do using the comparatively simple computers that are available now to anyone?

Wikipedia lists some of the many crimes that computers have been used for.

Computer Crime

These included but are definitely not limited to:

Fraud, Harassment, Illegal Narcotics, Sex Crimes, Cyber Terrorism, etc.

If there is ever really a doubt about whether or not ethical standards must be applied to any Artificial Intellect, one need only remember all the crimes that computers have been used for so far.

Dateline NBC
“To Catch a Predator”

To Catch a Predator

This television show accurately illustrates man’s ability to use the computer to descend into his own form of depravity.
Time and time again these subjects are caught attempting to meet and seduce children into sexual acts with them. Time and time again they are caught and subjected to the criminal justice system we currently have in place.
The current ethical standards are not enough now; they will not be enough for the potential abuse of an Artificial Intelligence; a computer with exponentially more potential than those that exist today.


Cyberterrorism:

Taking its place with Hitler, Napoleon and Alexander the Great, Terrorism has shown itself to be the next true world domination threat.

Car Bombings, Suicide Bombings, September 11, and the Embassy Bombings are but a few examples of the extent these radicals will go to achieve their desires of world domination.

Imagine our greatest threat in this modern era armed with an Artificial Intellect to further their means.


The application of ethical standards to any Artificial Intellect would, by necessity, include limitations as to the use, production and ownership of such a machine.

I do not currently have any idea how these restrictions could be implemented, but then that is not the subject of this debate.

The fact that ethical standards are completely necessary in governing the use and even ownership of an Advanced Artificial Intellect, should be completely clear by now.

However, just in case it is not, let’s continue shall we?


The Space Defense Initiative, “Star Wars”

David Parnas, a highly placed and respected computer scientist working on the SDI program, recently resigned over his concerns in using an Artificial Intelligence in the program.
Parnas believes that we can not currently obtain the necessary reliability from an A.I. in controlling such a project with such devastating potential.

Terminator 1, 2 and 3 anyone?

Science Fiction has had a unique way of becoming science fact. If any doubt this, just watch an old episode of the original Star Trek and pick out all of the things that they use in the show, that we now have systems far in advance of.

Without the implementation of ethical and moral standards in the use of an Advanced Artificial Intelligence, are we dooming ourselves to the future depicted in the Terminator movies?

While computers have become almost a necessity in our homes, our businesses and schools, we must ever be watchful that they do not come to control us as effectively as we now control them.
Our dependence must never become so complete that we can not exist without them. Without some ethical restrictions and moral guidelines on a computer as advanced as we are discussing, this becomes a very real possibility.


According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Computer ethics is a new branch of ethics that is growing and changing rapidly as computer technology also grows and develops. The term "computer ethics" is open to interpretations both broad and narrow. On the one hand, for example, computer ethics might be understood very narrowly as the efforts of professional philosophers to apply traditional ethical theories like utilitarianism, Kantianism, or virtue ethics to issues regarding the use of computer technology. On the other hand, it is possible to construe computer ethics in a very broad way to include, as well, standards of professional practice, codes of conduct, aspects of computer law, public policy, corporate ethics--even certain topics in the sociology and psychology of computing.
Computer Ethics

As we examine this, we can easily see where the more broad definition is the one of most eminent concern as it relates to our future.

The standards of professional practice, codes of conduct, and aspects of computer law, public policy and corporate ethics listed in the reference above are clearly and succinctly necessary as we move towards a true Advanced Artificial Intelligence.

Thank You

Semper

It seems I always end up with one response less than my opponent, however I will try to prove my point at my current disadvantage.

Originally posted by semperfortis
You have it backward my opponent, politics do not regulate ethics, rather ethics, or the lack of, regulate politics.

No. We're talking about Ethical Standards. Not ethics. Ethical Standards are regulated by the government. They are the standards in which we conduct ethics. Everyone has an inherent set of personal ethics, thus an Ethical Standards need to be created in order to normalize these 'ethics'.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Again I must ask: Are you serious?
With the current introduction into the scientific community of the first working Quantum Computer, the Playstation is exactly what it is supposed to be, a toy. My forensics computer makes the Playstation look like an Abacus.

I'm not familiar with your 'forensics computer'. However I do know that the Playstation is a monumental computing device equivalent to 1% of the human brain. Forgive me for not knowing the specs of your computer.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Imagine the devastation and destruction that one such machine could cause in the hands of the wrong individual without some form of ethical controls in place.

It staggers the imagination.

Semperfortis, do you believe a tank has ethical standards? What about an Ak47? Does that gun have ethical standards that it lives by? What about a canister of tear gas? Is that device embedded with ethical standards?

No.

Therefore why should another form of technology, True Artificial Intelligence, be obligated to have an 'ethical standards'? Does your 'Forensic Computer' have ethical standards?

Originally posted by semperfortis
Social responsibility, ethics, morals; call them what you will, it is incumbent on us and necessary for the survival of our species, to maintain control of our creations utilizing sound ethical standards.

You can't just lump a group of terms and deem them 'Ethical Standards'.

Social Responsibility
Ethics
Morals

All of these terms are NOT Ethical Standards. Each of these terms have their own unique definitions that is applicable to entirely different sections of our world.

You still fail to show how ethical standards is even relevant to True Artificial Intelligence.

Originally posted by semperfortis
In comprehending what a “True Artificial Intelligence” is, or will be, depending on what one believes exists at the moment; different images can come to mind. The one guiding principle that I believe most will agree to, is that any A. I. will be an incredibly advanced computer.

Once again, 'True Artificial Intelligence' is a pre-existing term just like 'Random Access Memory' or 'Digital Video Recorder'. It has already been defined, what gives you the right to redefine history?

Originally posted by semperfortis
Cyberterrorism:
Taking its place with Hitler, Napoleon and Alexander the Great, Terrorism has shown itself to be the next true world domination threat.

Once again, this is an unfair assessment. In your line of thinking, one could say 'gasoline' is the next biggest threat because it has the ability to fuel tanks that could potentially kill people.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Car Bombings, Suicide Bombings, September 11, and the Embassy Bombings are but a few examples of the extent these radicals will go to achieve their desires of world domination.

Imagine our greatest threat in this modern era armed with an Artificial Intellect to further their means.

You can't scare logics into the judges. Once again, in your line of thinking, you could state that 'Imagine our greatest threat in the modern era armed with Ultra-High Broadband internet.' True Artificial Intelligence is a technology. Technology is neutral until it is utilized by humans. Don't place the limitations on the development of the technology, turn your eye to humanity.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Our dependence must never become so complete that we can not exist without them. Without some ethical restrictions and moral guidelines on a computer as advanced as we are discussing, this becomes a very real possibility.

So to not be dependent on a computer, we must create ethical standards? I don't follow you on this one.

I believe I've already proven my point in this debate. To say that political authority will not have any influence on ethical standards is highly ignorant. In fact, politicians stage entire campaigns on their views on certain ethical standards.

Ethical Standards are political, not scientific. Therefore politics should have no place in the scientific advancement of the human race. We've seen history repeat itself and most recently with stem cell research. True Artificial Intelligence holds an amazing place for the future of humanity. However it will never be realized with ethical standards dictated from any political or governmental force.

Semper’s Closing:

"Humans must not create True Artificial Intelligence until comprehensive ethical standards exist to protect it".


In this debate I have defined for you, Artificial Intelligence, Ethics and Morals. I have taken these definitions and applied them to real world situations where they must exist together and I have shown you the possible tragic results if they do not.

I have provided you with expert testimony from Retired Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, who is currently doing extensive research into mankind’s darker side. This should illustrate the horrible potential man has for his own destruction. Our own imaginations can provide the end result of a scenario involving such men and an Advanced Artificial Intelligence.

I have provided you with more testimony from a computer expert, David Parnas, one working with arguably the most advanced of computers in existence, who resigned from a lucrative and challenging career because of ethical misgivings in the use of these advanced computers.

I have further illustrated to you the horrors of a “science fiction” that has every possibility of becoming “science fact” in our future, if we are not careful and committed to applying ethical standards to any Artificial Intelligence we create.

I have even provided to you a section of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that deals strictly with the fairly young science of computers and ethical standards.

My opponent even posted in support of my position.

On another note, people have and always will abuse technology. There is no stopping this. It has happened throughout history and it will continue to occur.

All of this and more that I have provided for you, should completely convince you of the absolute necessity of ethical and moral standards being set prior to the development and or proliferation of an Advanced Artificial Intelligence.

However I would like to address one segment of my worthy opponents last post.

Semperfortis, do you believe a tank has ethical standards? What about an Ak47? Does that gun have ethical standards that it lives by? What about a canister of tear gas? Is that device embedded with ethical standards?

Therefore why should another form of technology, True Artificial Intelligence, be obligated to have an 'ethical standards'? Does your 'Forensic Computer' have ethical standards?

That Tank, that AK47, Tear Gas and my Forensic computer, all are machines made by man; as an Advanced Artificial Intelligence will be.

And yes my opponent, they are all governed by ethical and moral standards, every bit as much as the A. I. must be.

If you use any of those items in an unethical or immoral manner, you will be held accountable.

Ethical standards certainly do apply to these and many other artificial mechanisms as they should. One need only see the potential for abuse of such machines, to witness the abuses that happen every day, to be convinced of this. Exactly like the uses and potential for abuse of an Artificial Intelligence, although magnified many times.

I have shown you the absolute necessity of comprehensive ethical standards in the creation and use of an artificial intelligence.

Anything less and we risk our own future.

Thank you for the opportunity to debate again.

Semperfortis

Look, I'm utterly disgusted at how my opponent continues to blend several concepts such as morals, ethics and social responsibility and redefines them to be relevant to the debate topic of 'Ethical Standards'. Ethical Standards are a regulation of ethics mediated by a ruling organization who has social authority (Hence Standards of Ethics). These regulations are congruent to the respective political climate in which they were created. The reason I refer to politics is because our political system is this ruling authority. Centuries ago, religious authorities would be this ruling authority as we have seen in the persecution of such thinkers as Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus by the Catholic Church. The reason why ethical standards are invalid in the creation of true artificial intelligence is because the ruling authority which dictates these ‘standards’ are influenced by a multitude of socio-environmental, financial, cultural and religious factors. These influential factors can and will influence the political paradigm. We see it happen every election term (and even in shorter intervals) when candidates align their campaign with these various influential factors. Thus if the political atmosphere is so volatile and indefinite, the ethical standards dictated by these politics are also volatile and indefinite. If these ethical standards are saturated in indeterminacy, then they should not be applied to scientific discoveries such as true artificial intelligence that are based on definitions and stability. Science is the most rigorous field of human exploration due to its sheer factual nature (and at times striving to be factual via tested hypotheses). To apply standards that are indeterminate to a field of study as science that is based on determinacy is an injustice to the exploration of science. Computer science should not be crippled by these imprecise and above all unscientific standards. True artificial intelligence holds a wealth of information for humanity to better understand our relationship with our universe. However true artificial intelligence will never be discovered if these standards, which inhibit and prevent science from being realized, are imposed.

That is the best possible way to convey my point.

Alright judging will now commence.

Semperfortis has prevailed and will advance to the next round. Outstanding effort by both fighters.

This was a tough one for me personally. I thought Simulacra had the stronger argument in the abstract, but his delivery just wasn't supportive of that very viable, initial thrust. Semperfortis, for his part, continued to hammer home his point and ground it out. Winner: Semperfortis

I was under the impression that the question was one of affording human rights to non-biological consciousness. However, both sides did very well with their own interpretations of the issue. SemperFortis raised the more compelling concerns though. The idea of computers with decision making power being subject to hackers is a threat of Manchurian Candidate proportions. Simulacra seemed to be concerned that AI would be prevented or limited in its use by politicians with religious agendas, and that rang far less true to me.