The Future of Robots

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Staizer

Why would I "use" a computer if it is as sentient as I am? I could converse with it, maybe type in code, but I wouldn't assume that I could use it at my own disgression. That would be the same as using another human being without their permission.

...

edit: I don't feel bad about using computers because that is what they are for right now but if they are sentient, or if something robotic recieved sentience I would feel bad about using a computer

Just tell 'em that they're free to do as they like, but if they don't do as they're told you'll cut off their power and leave 'em to die.

Works well enough on people.

Originally Posted by Staizer

neither could someone who has been labotomized and is now a vegetable, should we use them as workers? Or as experiments?

We have those too, they're called the sad, chubby retards who bag groceries over at Giant. And who knows how many of 'em are how they are for some awful reason like excessive lead exposure or mercury in some vaccine they took?

[Staizer]

Just tell 'em that they're free to do as they like, but if they don't do as they're told you'll cut off their power and leave 'em to die.

Works well enough on people.

First off, I should hope that that comment is full of sarcasm and that you don't really mean that we should treat humans like this.

With that out of the way, if we shouldn't treat humans like this, then why would be treat any other sentient that way?

But then, I am repeating myself, because I have already said that.

We have those too, they're called the sad, chubby retards who bag groceries over at Giant. And who knows how many of 'em are how they are for some awful reason like excessive lead exposure or mercury in some vaccine they took?

My point is that many people misuse them. They can have jobs if they want jobs, but to take advantage of a person, or a robot, because they/it doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what is happening to them/it?

Once again, I find myself repeating things I have already said . . . Its fine to treat machines like machines, but as soon as AI is created, THEY govern how machines should be treated.

Otherwise you get slave-robot rebellions, robot wars, killer computers, and other such things.

Basically I am saying treat robots with respect, treat humans with respect, and you will be respected in turn.

[Nique]

Do you make the same distinctions with animal life? Becuase I think we would see AI on that level before we could consider them on par with human-life.

And I'm actually asking. it isn't rethorical.

[Premmy]

Originally Posted by Staizer

Once again, I find myself repeating things I have already said . . . Its fine to treat machines like machines, but as soon as AI is created, THEY govern how machines should be treated.

Otherwise you get slave-robot rebellions, robot wars, killer computers, and other such things.

Basically I am saying treat robots with respect, treat humans with respect, and you will be respected in turn.

brotha, you are missing the point, no machins would need to be smarter than a calculator except AI machines, they would'nt care about calculators no matter what the job they did was

[Staizer]

Nique, yes I would make that same distinction, as soon as it achieves recognizable sentience we would no longer "govern" it.

Premonitions, if we had the ability to produce stupid humans, should we?

[Premmy]

O Jebus! man listen, not making stupid robots, making tools, thats it, they would'nt even be remotely similar to what would be needed for AI but what is needed for a digital watch, not even remotely on par with an AI, meaning it would'nt be like smart human, dumb human, it would be human, electric drill.

[Staizer]

Mmm, that's your definition.

A Calculator, digital watch, and electric drills (especially CAD driven drills) all require calculations that would be on par or greater than a human's abilities.

Robots today require computations, smarter computations that humanity can do unaided. Think of Rain Man, he may not be smart in everything else, but math he can get. These computers are just a step below.

If it requires computation, electronic computation, it is equivilent to or greater than a lot of humans in this world.

Basic things: hammers, nail guns, things we had 60-100 years ago, probably wouldn't matter too much, but things that require circuitry would be under robotic jurisdiction unless they said otherwise.

[Azisien]

Hey, this is a cool thread, why did I miss it?

A major problem with this discussion is that we don't know what an AI would be like. We also don't know how to create one, so speculating on what an AI would or would not do is pretty irrelevant. Assuming an AI would go on a killing rampage because someone uses a calculator is makes slim to no sense, or at least isn't grounded properly.

Isn't the Human/Vegetable Human AI/Non-AI analogy lacking as much as the Human/Bacteria one? As far as we're taking the logic carried BY this analogy, I don't think it works. Engineers do not make create a sentient machine, only then to chop it up into a cell phone, so how can that be compared to someone taking a human being and lobotomizing them into a vegetable?

I just don't see it, perhaps I missed a good explanation earlier (in which case notify of such), or no one has/can explain it properly. How would an AI automatically rule over anything with circuitry? Is that not the equivalent of saying (using both analogies), that a normal human being rules over all other inferior organic life, OR all human vegetables? Would a human vegetable not simply die without constant medical attention? A calculator can make due on its own for a year or so with its batteries.

I could also argue humans are NOT above all organic life. I could argue that we are NOT the only sentient organic life. But I'll wait for replies to the above first, and the latter two arguments start becoming slightly off-topic.

[Nique]

I'm inclined to agree. We wouldn't nessicerily be growing sentient robots and harvesting their parts - that serves no purpose. We make machines, even robots & computers to aid our everyday life and advance our understanding of the world around us, but AI is another level.

Essentially I think the comparison could be a more complex version of this.

1)Machines < 2)Robotics < 3)Computers < 4)A.I. < 5)Advanced A.I.

1)Cells < 2)Plants < 3)Microscopic life-forms < 4)Animals < 5)Human

# 3 is, I think, a very generous comparision for the computer, by the way. I make that one only becuase such creatures brain-activity is, presumably, so basic, though admitedly more advanced than most if not all computers.

The level where we start having moral issues is at the AI/animal portion, yes? Though they might be more attracted to an environment comprising of things from which they derived, why would Advanced AI place any more value on an Electric drill than we do on a plant? We eat plants, they are a 'tool' to our body, in a fashion.

They may even view basic computers as somewhat of an 'ancestor' to them, but they would have no 'inherint' filial attachment to them, becuase they would know what makes them different from these, which is sentients. That is the only thing that gives their exsistence any felt 'value', as is the same with our own lives. We don't value any ol' organic matter as 'grandpa'.

[Staizer]

1)Machines < 2)Robotics < 3)Computers < 4)A.I. < 5)Advanced A.I.

1)Cells < 2)Plants < 3)Microscopic life-forms < 4)Animals < 5)Human

more accurately 1. Microscopic life forms - 2. Cells - 3. Plants - 4. Animals - 5. Humans

I must apologize for getting caught up in an illogical arguement.

When put in these terms my arguement doesn't make much sense.

Therefore, I would say; Treat Advanced AI as human and let them determine what they consider part of themselves.

However it boils down, we do need to treat them with the same respect we give humanity, otherwise there will be rebellion and war.