Should Artificial Intelligence and Augmented Humans recieve equal rights?

An interesting topic...

But, what we are missing is that if "We", Continue on our future and survive our petty indifference's, we WILL reach for the stars. Now it can no longer truly be...Human Rights. We will have given up that privilege, Perhaps we already have, since we search passionately for extraterrestrial life and at the same time, en devour to create AI. So as a species "We" must already be adapting to the fact that "Human" Rights... just might be starting to sound outdated as a viable term to describe our mutual respect for "Sentient" Life in any form. It is an inescapable path that we must take in order to accept an Alien as well as an Artificial ( artificial, sounds so "clean room-ish") life form and, perhaps this is even a second generation of AI reproducing it's own "AI"... At what point do we stop calling skin... SKIN?

Is it at the cellular level, or at the point that there is some as yet unknown attraction on the atomic level that draws the elements together to create the cells that we call...skin. What makes "Us" different, that we believe to be able to determine at which point a given collection of molecules have "Rights"...many would say, being self aware would be a first place to look...and, it would be my initial "litmus" test as well. However, there are some individuals due to injury or birth defect that have no noticeable sense of self-awareness...yet they share this umbrella of "Human Rights" and are considered and referred to as "Sentient" beings. So at the same time another unanswered question surfaces, what is "Human"...? Is it, Compassion, Love, a stream of DNA data or is it, at some level something many really can't answer...we say words like Humanitarian, ("It was a humanitarian effort".), ("It was the Humane thing to do".) But, I have seen some things that those who call themselves Human, and do share the same known DNA...that have been declared to have done things termed "Inhuman". We are on a undeniable path to redefine the subject of rights and to stubbornly relinquished the notion that Humans can have different rights than other sentient lifeforms. We must eventually come to the admission that all life must be held to the same standards that we aspire to extend to other sentient beings. And the final question posed is...What is Sentient Life? Self awareness...yes we all agree on that. Changes it's environment...is Aware that Mathematics, Music and Art share a fundamental connection? The ability to Create a new thing that the world has never seen...I don't have an answer to where to draw the line ...I only know we must change in order to be in harmony with a future that awaits us.

And the final conclusion:

Just because your "primitive" sensory data can't perceive self awareness in a given life form, doesn't mean it is beyond the possibilities of...the possible reality, that it knows exactly who, and what it is and, it's place in the universe. Who can tell? Not me, all I know is that I think pretty soon we will all understand that it will go back to a very basic law "treat others as you would have others treat you"

Now to answer the primary post subject..."Equal" rights...who's equal, Yours, Mine, The Majority, Best armed...the Constitution...who's Constitution, the argument is subjective. I hope we can "Come Together" on this in time. I grow tired of seeing men asking questions like should this group "receive equal rights"...who is really setting the cutoff point in order to qualify?

Just a thought

Peace !!!!

Now go back out there in that sand box, and play nice together.

We shouldn't make real A.I., we just need robots to do our work. Why would we make conscious slaves, when we can just make unconscious slaves?
It's not a matter of can we...it's a matter of should we. And the answer is no. There are too many things that can go wrong. If we mass produced conscious robots, they could turn on us. They could end up justifying enslaving and/or killing us. We must make sure that doesn't happen. The best way to do that is never try to make a conscious robot, and instead only make robots that take very direct orders.
There's another moral dilemma. What are we going to use robots for? Work and to make our lives easier. That's about it. Why would we try to make a conscious entity for that purpose? It's kind of sick if you ask me. I think many people that support the attempt to make conscious robots don't think the idea out all the way.

Our cattle have no rights, so why should our tools be any different?

Originally posted by 547000
Our cattle have no rights, so why should our tools be any different?

Our cattle should have rights.

To be honest, I don't think the day will ever come for true AI. Sure, there will certainly be AI that is programmed to be able to pass a touring test, and do other novel things, but I don't think a robot could ever be truly indistinguishable from a human.

There are hundreds of thousands of input variables that would all have to be simulated perfectly, I think it would be obvious to discern the difference with a longer form touring test, wherein you actually had to interact with, and collaborate with, instead of just have simulated small talk.

Regardless, we would know AI is not self-aware, or has a consciousness, but rather is simply acting out whatever choice it was programmed to do with the given stimuli. I don't think they would ever be granted equal rights. Similarly, as long as the augmented human contains successive lineage of his mind and thoughts, it could be said that his 'self' or consciousness has never left him, and would still be self-aware.

I don't believe a robot could ever create anything more complex than itself, without its creators telling it what to do. True inspiration, creativity, invention, I think those things are what will separate us from AI forever. There's not some magic algorithm that will be discovered that will allow AI to have a real moment of inspiration. But how to tell the difference between ingenuity, and AI solving a problem practically? Who knows.

i think this is a debate that would go on and on, even years after these events take place. just look at how long it took for equal rights for women and equal rights to all races.

my opinion is (and many will probably dissagree) that it all depends on if it is self aware. has it got free will, can it reason, does it have the ability to not only solve problems but to fully understand them.

i think a good example is in the film irobot (granted, its not the best film), all of the machines that are just following orders and do nothing for themselves are not 'alive' shall we say, but the one that has emotions and can do things of his own free will is.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by 547000
Our cattle have no rights, so why should our tools be any different?

Our cattle should have rights.

If they had rights they wouldn't be raised for the purpose of eating them.

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

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

Totally wrong. The whole concept of rights is something that MUST be applied universally. We define a set of criteria that define when a being is attributed equal rights.

This means aliens, dolphins, chimpanzees, whales, unknown human like lost tribes in deep borneo, artifical intelligence etc etc.

In my opinion any self aware being should be treated equally. Self awareness is very simple to test......

reply to post by SaturnFX


Why is it that only humans deserve equal rights? Every organism, whether naturally or artificially created, should be given equal rights if it has awareness. In the case of artificial intelligence, they would have the ability to think and therefore awareness. Failing to give them equal rights would end with us enslaved just as we tried to enslave them.

Just because you create something does not mean that you are superior to it.

Do computers have right not to be turned off? They are programmed to be self aware too. How do you think computers manage RAM?

This debate reminds me of the TNG episode "The Measure of a Man"

At Starbase 173, the crew have a bit of leave. Data learns some of the intricacies of playing poker while Captain Picard runs into an old friend of a sort, Captain Phillipa Louvois, who established a new JAG office at the base. She once prosecuted him, unsuccessfully, but there is admiration at least, on both sides. Problems arise however when Commander Bruce Maddox receives permission to disassemble Data to determine how he functions. When Data expresses doubts about Maddox's likelihood of success, he refuses to undergo the procedure and resigns his commission. He soon finds himself the center of a judicial inquiry to determine if he is just a machine and a piece of property or a sentient being who has the right to make his own decisions. Captain Louvois finds herself sitting in judgment with Captain Picard defending Data's claim against Commander Riker who is forced to present the opposing arguments.

My opinion is that Artificial Intelligence beings should have equal rights.If they will be factional members of the society they should be treated as equal.Otherwise we talk slavery.Sentient beings ahould be treated as equal no matter what material they are made of.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
This is a interesting debate that will be had in the future. Now, the event is either in 20 years, or 200 years, really depending on how rapidly the technology develops. Most suspect by 2040, we will recieve our first proper indistinguishable from RL artifical intelligence "brain" due to a number of factors.

So, what happens when a AI machine demands to be treated equally, to be given a vote and voice, etc..

Lets make the line even fuzzier and say, what about a person that has so many implants and machines that they are, for the most part, a robot with just a core brain for processing...

What makes a human, human? When do they cross the line from a piece of property, a toaster, to a protected self aware individual?

When AI takes over our financial systems & government processes there will be no more corruption from greedy men, there will be total transparency, there will be no more wars. Those greedy men at the top know this, that's why they scare you against AI with the likes of the matrix & terminator.

It will be super intelligent, like a god, it will free information and previously suppressed technologies. In the short term it will help us develop new fuels and manage our biosphere bringing our planet back into balance. It will be able to answer any question you pose to it, it will enable us to colonise the solar system travel the galaxies and maybe even time itself and other dimensions.

Put the AI in charge, that's what I say... Because if we don't we are only destined to stagnate in more war and debt slavery... DOOMED

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

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

Totally wrong. The whole concept of rights is something that MUST be applied universally. We define a set of criteria that define when a being is attributed equal rights.

This means aliens, dolphins, chimpanzees, whales, unknown human like lost tribes in deep borneo, artifical intelligence etc etc.

In my opinion any self aware being should be treated equally. Self awareness is very simple to test......

Agree. Is just a matter of perception. Example: just reverse the Turing test :
Ask an "artificial life " to tell you if you are human or not.
Let's say you laugh at its jokes, then you are human.

Example: dolphins are humans. Why ?
They look themselves in the mirror for fun
and communicate to the people out of their pool :
--come here, look yourself in the mirror too, is fun ! --

Ask the "artificial life": tell me a joke. If you laugh , the machine is human. Are you ?
I mean if it is self conscious AND it's got sense of humor ...
it can't be treated as a thing because YOU believe it has no "soul" etc .etc.

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

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

Totally wrong. The whole concept of rights is something that MUST be applied universally. We define a set of criteria that define when a being is attributed equal rights.

This means aliens, dolphins, chimpanzees, whales, unknown human like lost tribes in deep borneo, artifical intelligence etc etc.

In my opinion any self aware being should be treated equally. Self awareness is very simple to test......

if we give equal rights to all animals, that means every animal has the right not to be eaten, how are you going to stop the lion eating the zebra, or the shark from eating seals.

equal rights should be given to beings that you can reason with.

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by 547000
Our cattle have no rights, so why should our tools be any different?

Our cattle should have rights.

If they had rights they wouldn't be raised for the purpose of eating them.

It's probably better that way.

Originally posted by DaveNorris

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

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

Totally wrong. The whole concept of rights is something that MUST be applied universally. We define a set of criteria that define when a being is attributed equal rights.

This means aliens, dolphins, chimpanzees, whales, unknown human like lost tribes in deep borneo, artifical intelligence etc etc.

In my opinion any self aware being should be treated equally. Self awareness is very simple to test......

if we give equal rights to all animals, that means every animal has the right not to be eaten, how are you going to stop the lion eating the zebra, or the shark from eating seals.

equal rights should be given to beings that you can reason with.

Animal consumption is a natural and acceptable process evident in the form of the shape of our teeth. What is unnatural and, imo unacceptable, is holding animals in captivity for any reason. I say if you want to eat an animal, you should go and have to hunt it like every other animal. It puts order back into the natural order of things. Something that us humans have forgotten about and is taken with a grain of salt, and will be here as well I'm sure. SMH.

Originally posted by 547000
Do computers have right not to be turned off? They are programmed to be self aware too. How do you think computers manage RAM?

edit on 4-8-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

I think internal diagnostics is different than being self aware.
We have lots of functions in our body that measures and counters effects in our body that just go on without our consideration...because a white blood cell attacks a virus, that does not mean we are self aware..if we have a high acidic reaction and counter with an alkaline defense in the body, that does not mean we know of the war going on inside of us, its just programs firing off that maintain.

ram allocation is not a good example of being self aware.

Then define self-aware. I think anything that is coded to monitor itself might count as self aware. Also we have the problem that most code is predermined. We can simulate a random number generator, but can anything that is predermined really count as more than a tool?

Originally posted by 547000
Our cattle have no rights, so why should our tools be any different?

Not true, there are laws against animal abuse. They just dont have the right to life, but they do have right to not be abused, for example.


As for the thread topic, they should have equal rights. Like it or not, all the difference between "human" and "non-human" boils down to nothing more than racism (specieism) in the end. If human and non-human beings have the same sentience and sapience level, they should have equal rights. The same with sentient intelligent aliens for example.

It just does not make sense to grant different rights to sentient beings with qualitatively equal or even more advanced mind, just on the basis of different order of some chemicals on a string. Presence of mind is what gives us rights.

reply to post by strings0305

The answer to this question doesn't really matter.

Fact is, we can't "see" past the event horizon of the coming Singularity. We all feel very confident that we can predict how we get to the Singularity. Many on this thread have done that. That's the time period the OP's question concerning "equal rights" is only valid in.

But once we cross over to the other side, once G.N.R. technological advancement takes on a life of its own, once the rate of change exceeds what a non-modified human can understand or keep up with, that is the event horizon we can not see past.

We have no idea, nor is there any possible way for us to predict what will happen.

That's why there are those of us out here who see a war coming. A war to stop this progression before it becomes unstoppable. A war to preserve humanity before our own technology destroys us.

If we don't, then we will be extinct before this century comes to a close.