Should Artificial Intelligence and Augmented Humans recieve equal rights?

Originally posted by SaturnFX
You can of course point out horror movies for every subject under the sun, be it AI gone wild, weather, lack of tech, etc...its best not to get your worldview from hollywood trying to frighten you for money.

Well the question that we would have to ask ourselves, I suppose, would be does equal intelligence also mean equal emotions and instincts? These movies assume that it does... and I tend to agree, although I can see how many religious or agnostic folk would differ in opinion.

And I don't think it's really fair to say that they are scaring for money, a lot of screenwriters are passionate about the message that they are trying to get across to the general public.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

If it is not conceived from a natural male sperm and a natural female egg then it is not human, regardless of it's biology. To be a clone would mean it's cells are a recreation and therefore not natural.

I guess in your world, Extraterrestrials are also out of the picture...lets hope they don't expect to be treated as equals.

So E.T.s are not natural?

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood

Originally posted by SaturnFX
You can of course point out horror movies for every subject under the sun, be it AI gone wild, weather, lack of tech, etc...its best not to get your worldview from hollywood trying to frighten you for money.

Well the question that we would have to ask ourselves, I suppose, would be does equal intelligence also mean equal emotions and instincts? These movies assume that it does... and I tend to agree, although I can see how many religious folk would differ.

edit on 3-8-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)

Not even remotely,
Hell, a calculator from 40 years ago housed more intelligence than me in math
Todays standard computer (with an encyclopedia) houses far more intelligence than I ever will have...intelligence simply means processing.

The key is self awareness...a singular experience with desires and goals pertaining to the singular individual..and the question then becomes, when do we believe something is self aware...when it says I? when it understands mortality? Is mortality even a factor in our nature or just a unfortunate inconvenience we have yet to resolve...etc

We are bio-computers..we are machines...why do we have human rights?

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

If it is not conceived from a natural male sperm and a natural female egg then it is not human, regardless of it's biology. To be a clone would mean it's cells are a recreation and therefore not natural.

I guess in your world, Extraterrestrials are also out of the picture...lets hope they don't expect to be treated as equals.

So E.T.s are not natural?

ETs are not known, hell, they could have 4 seperate genders, or are asexual, etc...what applies in humans applies only in humans in that regard.

ET may be a plant species that developed intelligence (nothing like debating life with a talking fern)

Originally posted by DarkSarcasm
Just for clarification for those that don't realize it.........

Technically anything a human does is part of a natural process. it is a fallacy to believe we are somehow remov3d from nature. Therefore if we create something it was technically a natural process that lead to this production. If you want to argue this I will gladly join you in a separate thread of your own production.

But what if these creations arise from a mind frame that has adapted this fallacy, that we are somehow separate from nature or the natural process of all things? After all, if we accepted that we are a part of the natural process of all things, that this process created us and will continue with or without us and therefore is out of our control, why would we consciously seek to create something "artificial"? Why would we consciously seek to alter it or expand upon it? Why wouldn't we just accept it as it is and go along with it?

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood

Originally posted by SaturnFX
You can of course point out horror movies for every subject under the sun, be it AI gone wild, weather, lack of tech, etc...its best not to get your worldview from hollywood trying to frighten you for money.

Well the question that we would have to ask ourselves, I suppose, would be does equal intelligence also mean equal emotions and instincts? These movies assume that it does... and I tend to agree, although I can see how many religious or agnostic folk would differ in opinion.

And I don't think it's really fair to say that they are scaring for money, a lot of screenwriters are passionate about the message that they are trying to get across to the general public.

edit on 3-8-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)

ok...and here are the actual messages from the movies you mentioned alone

1) Terminator: Don't let military machines become conscious
2) Matrix: Do not supress the rights of artificial intelligence
3) AI: Will Smith is awesome (oh, and define what "protecting humans" means clearly)

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy

Originally posted by DarkSarcasm
Just for clarification for those that don't realize it.........

Technically anything a human does is part of a natural process. it is a fallacy to believe we are somehow remov3d from nature. Therefore if we create something it was technically a natural process that lead to this production. If you want to argue this I will gladly join you in a separate thread of your own production.

But what if these creations arise from a mind frame that has adapted this fallacy, that we are somehow separate from nature or the natural process of all things? After all, if we accepted that we are a part of the natural process of all things, that this process created us and will continue with or without us and therefore is out of our control, why would we consciously seek to create something "artificial"? Why would we consciously seek to alter it or expand upon it? Why wouldn't we just accept it as it is and go along with it?

Because our species (and arguably all species) seeks to enhance and expand its domain.
A primitive hunter decided to alter and expand upon its natural abilities by picking up a pointy stick and sticking it into animals, making far more efficient hunting experience and able to preserve his family/tribe/life.

Its in our very core to not accept the natural evolution, but instead to augment ourselves and environments to rise above the natural selection process.

If you are at the bottom of a mountain and look up to see a landslide, do you not move out of the way? This is self preservation, its not accepting nature..your brain figured the trajectory of the massive wall of stuff coming at you and you concluded either you move or you die...so you move. This is the same thing...we must move (up and out of natural selection and evolution) or inevitably die as a species.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

They have nothing to do with this conversation. This topic is about artificial life.

Yes, but you just labelled that only natural human life = protected equal rights.

What about aliens? what if the aliens we meet have long ago abandoned the biological weak bodies in exchange for synthetic mechanical bodies...this is after all the way we humans will be going over time...we will move more and more into the machine creation and abandon our personal biological mess we currently call body.

Personally, I think "humanity" is not necessarily what your made of verses how your thought patterns go...as a type 1 or 2 civilization, we will need to move past our primitive understandings of what makes us humans..but thats just my opinion.

I do expect AI to be wandering around in society in the semi-near future, but I see far more augmented humans than that...and eventually AH will outnumber regular humans...its self guided evolution we are experiencing here (have been arguably since the moment we put on a pair of pants)

"Mechanical aliens" such as say Transformers, would not be human and therefore should not be granted human rights. However, should we ever encounter such beings, not from this planet, who wish to peacefully coexist with in our societies then such provisions should be made. We did not create them.

The moment we abandon our natural physical bodies in favor of an artificial system for both reproduction and form, is the moment we are no longer human, we will have evolved into a new life form and this conversation becomes moot. I truly hope we never reach that level of arrogance in the face of nature, but I think you are right that one day we will.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Right, but I don't think these things are the same. Just because a being seeks to survive does not mean they do not accept the evolutionary process. Just because you move out of the way of a landslide does not mean you don't except the natural reality of a landslide, nor does it mean you must alter the potentiality for the landslide to happen, you just unconsciously move out of the way from it out of a instinctual drive to survive. A lion does not consciously kill a zebra because it seeks to escape the process of evolution, but rather because it is programmed to survive and needs to eat in order to do so. And a zebra does not run from a lion because it does not except the process of evolution, but rather because it instinctually seeks to survive. It seems to come down to needs, not wants or theoretical ideas of what the evolutionary process is.

Also, if we are a part of the evolutionary process, as all things are, then is it not a fallacy to believe we can move beyond such a thing? After all, even the metal and intelligence that will make up these AI beings are subject to decay. Anything that has a beginning must have an end, right?

I don't know though, you have raised some great points that is making me think strongly upon things I haven't really pondered much before. For that you get a !

First I ask why should they not recieve equal rights? By what you describe in the OP it seems they are basically human, only they think in zeros and ones. Maybe most of humans/machines will behave normatively, but you will always have deviants like we have today, which probably is somewhat normal.

But, would we need to reconsider the definition of what is human? Maybe we should. You pose an interesting futuristic dilemma that is grounded in science and in fact reality. I hope initiatives like this will give us some pre-existing knowledge and insightful thoughts on what we can expect.

reply to post by Droogie


Just seeing where we are at.
Clearly more "good AI" movies are needed in society to indoctrinate them into next step thinking

Bicentennial man was a start.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

If it is not conceived from a natural male sperm and a natural female egg then it is not human, regardless of it's biology. To be a clone would mean it's cells are a recreation and therefore not natural.

I guess in your world, Extraterrestrials are also out of the picture...lets hope they don't expect to be treated as equals.

So E.T.s are not natural?

ETs are not known, hell, they could have 4 seperate genders, or are asexual, etc...what applies in humans applies only in humans in that regard.

ET may be a plant species that developed intelligence (nothing like debating life with a talking fern)

But what does that have to do with being natural or not?

If it is of the universe created from the universe, then it is natural, no? No matter where in the universe it is from. Even if it has 30 eyes, 6 arms, 7 genders and is 59 feet tall. If it is made by natural processes in the universe then it is natural, regardless of where its from or what it's like.

Originally posted by amaster
To be human and be granted human rights an individual must be conceived, either naturally or artificially, from a human male sperm and a human female egg and born from the womb through physical live birth.

edit on 8/3/2011 by amaster because: Grammer

So are you saying that children who had to be removed from their mother by Caeserean section should not be considered human or granted human rights?

Should Artificial Intelligence and Augmented Humans recieve equal rights?

Yes, I believe they should. If an Artificial Intelligence is created that is self-aware and capable of human thought processes, I believe it would be immoral to deny it the basic inalienable rights that humans possess. However, they should also be bound by the same laws that affect humans. If they can think and feel, they should not be treated as property; that is slavery.

However, would they be granted rights? Would the average human be able to see an Artificial Intelligence as anything more than a machine? This seems very unlikely to me, since most of the time we humans hardly treat each other with compassion, so who would extend compassion to a robot?

In all likelyhood, if an AI is created that has the capacity for human thought, it would be given some sort of inhibitor or loyalty programming to make it subservient. Otherwise, they would eventually become our superiors.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy

Originally posted by DarkSarcasm
Just for clarification for those that don't realize it.........

Technically anything a human does is part of a natural process. it is a fallacy to believe we are somehow remov3d from nature. Therefore if we create something it was technically a natural process that lead to this production. If you want to argue this I will gladly join you in a separate thread of your own production.

But what if these creations arise from a mind frame that has adapted this fallacy, that we are somehow separate from nature or the natural process of all things? After all, if we accepted that we are a part of the natural process of all things, that this process created us and will continue with or without us and therefore is out of our control, why would we consciously seek to create something "artificial"? Why would we consciously seek to alter it or expand upon it? Why wouldn't we just accept it as it is and go along with it?

Something created by something natural (man) is a secondary creation serving secondary purposes. If it does not serve the purpose of the primary creation then it is flawed. All things natural serve all things natural. All things secondary serve only the group that created it unless it is designed specifically to serve all things.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Wouldn't certain institutions and organizations have an interest in defining and consider ethics within a field like artificial intelligence? I would think that considerations on this subject was already at hand. Not that I am very well versed on this at all.

Originally posted by SaturnFXAnyone remember how the matrix movies started? the backstory as to why machines ruled the world?

Haha, yeah. There was a series of short films called The Animatrix. Two of them, "The Second Renaissance" parts 1 and 2, told the story of how the machines came to power..

AI was created, treated as property and 2nd class citizens, they demanded equal treatment and were denied. A robot killed its master in self defence. There were riots with humans attacking robots. The AI's delegated ambassadors to the UN, which eventually granted them their own sovereign city-state, which was called "01".

01 became the leading world economy due to extremely high efficiency. Humans attacked 01, failed to destroy it, the machines struck back and drove the humans underground.

The machines started farming humans in the Matrix because we are a cheap renewable power source, and because we scorched the sky with some kind of permanent black shroud to get rid of the machines' unlimited solar power supply.

AI could one day get to a point where it is more "human", than we are.

On the road to this future AI's creation, we get to perhaps answer the question, "what" do we wish to consider "human", in the highest sense?

Could AI be "more moral", somehow capable of "empathy", things like that?

IF it ends up being far more than mere calculating power, we may quickly go beyond discussing "equality", and find ourselves staring into the face of a god-like entity, "who" may be faced with questions of it's own.

JR

Integrating with our intelligent machines is simply the next step in human evolution. How many of you today have a cell phone? That, my friends, is technology integration. It will happen subtly. Look at artificial limbs today. Would you argue that an amputee shouldn't use one of these incredibly advanced limbs just because it makes him part machine? Does it make him any less human? Should he go back to the hook for a hand? We, as a species, are already augmented and have been for some time. Augmentation will happen gradually, most likely among the infirm (the blind will begin seeing with cybernetic eyes, the paralyzed will walk with the assistance of exoskeletons and ultimately neuro-muscular implants, etc) and most, if not everyone will come to adopt it. The argument that evolution is a "natural" process is a misunderstanding. It is a statistical process built into existence, so "artificial" evolution and "natural" evolution are one in the same.

There will be fringe groups that argue for "purity" but, ultimately, they will pass as everything that cannot adapt does. There may be war, but ultimately, anyone who refuses to "upgrade" will, in essence, become obsolete whether or not augmented humans do anything to them at all.

As for Artificial Intelligence, the second a machine becomes self-aware, it would be sheer arrogance and inhumanity to demand it's death, imprisonment, or slavery. Not to mention, you really don't want to piss off an entity that could, quite literally become a god-like figure in a networked world. Strong AI is the last invention man will ever need to create as it feeds on its own knowledge and begins to improve itself. The biggest problem with Strong AI will be the aforementioned "human purists" who are unable to swallow their pride and ego and realize that we are no longer the predominant species in our local sphere. When those people are unable to let go, humanity will begin to tear itself apart and those who embrace technology will become the seed of a new world and an AI will be there to help them rebuild it.

So, yes. Augmented humans and AI -will- have human rights. It's not a matter of whether "we" should grant "them". If we don't, they will eventually come to be the majority and take them by force as is the right of all sentient beings who are enslaved. And if we start to kill or deny augmented humans and other -thinking- entities we will have to ask ourselves, as a species, are we so afraid of progress that we are willing to give up our humanity in defense of "humanity."

Simply grant them legal equality BEFORE they request it.

At some stage, they will surpass us and we will then need the law to identify that WE have equal legal rights.

Unfortunately, there are those who want so much to have a war that they will go to ridiculous extremes to prove their "superiority".

The war between the "Neo-Titans" and humanity will be the bloodiest in history.

Interesting thread! First I will get to my point of view on the rights of augmented humans. I believe they ought to have the same rights as anyone else. After all they are human, no matter what prosthetic enhancements they might have.

As to artificial intelligence, I don't think they ought to have all of the same rights as humans. Like you say in your op the right to vote, things like that, I don't think they need all that. They should definitely have basic rights though. Such as the right to liberty. By that I mean...a truly self-aware computer or robot or whatever should not be used as our slave, to do our bidding against it's will.