AI Ethics

[Norsefire]

I say full human rights.

[Enmos]

I say full human rights.

So you grand a robot full human rights, but not a gay person ?
What if it's a gay robot ? Or worse, a Jewish one..

[Norsefire]

So you grant a robot full human rights, but not a gay person ?

I'd grant them both rights. However, a robot, by simply existing, isn't committing a wrong.

Or worse, a Jewish one..

I love Jewish people. Where did you get the idea I didn't?

[Enmos]

I'd grant them both rights. However, a robot, by simply existing, isn't committing a wrong.

I'm sure robots would commit many wrong things according to scripture.
For one, robots are by definition atheists..

I love Jewish people. Where did you get the idea I didn't?

Just poking you dude
(Not in any sexual way though)

[Norsefire]

I'm sure robots would commit many wrong things according to scripture.
For one, robots are by definition atheists..

Who said I find homosexuality wrong because of scripture?

[Enmos]

Who said I find homosexuality wrong because of scripture?

Maybe I got you confused with Kadark.

So why do you think it's wrong then ?

[Norsefire]

Maybe I got you confused with Kadark.

So why do you think it's wrong then ?

I do not necessarily believe it is "wrong", but I don't think it's proper. Man and woman exist because they need each other; society is based off of this need for each other. Man and man......I dunno, it just doesn't fit for me.

[Enmos]

I do not necessarily believe it is "wrong", but I don't think it's proper. Man and woman exist because they need each other; society is based off of this need for each other. Man and man......I dunno, it just doesn't fit for me.

Ok, but that's your personal belief then.
Maybe I'm wrong about this too, but wasn't it you that advocated all kinds of horrible things to be done to gay people ?

Edit: that was probably Kadark as well..

Got to go now though

[Norsefire]

Ok, but that's your personal belief then.

Did I state otherwise?

Maybe I'm wrong about this too, but wasn't it you that advocated all kinds of horrible things to be done to gay people ?

Yes, in the past, and as I said in a different thread, I used to be so stupid.


I would rather we accept gays than kill them. Only because I don't think they deserve to DIE. Hopefully though we can fix them with modern medicine.

[Enmos]

Did I state otherwise?


Yes, in the past, and as I said in a different thread, I used to be so stupid.


I would rather we accept gays than kill them. Only because I don't think they deserve to DIE. Hopefully though we can fix them with modern medicine.

Ok, just as a quick off-topic:
Shouldn't they be allowed to make up their own mind about being "fixed", or do you suggest we should force them to get fixed ?

[Norsefire]

Ok, just as a quick off-topic:
Shouldn't they be allowed to make up their own mind about being "fixed", or do you suggest we should force them to get fixed ?

It would just be a medical procedure.

[Enmos]

It would just be a medical procedure.

But if they don't want to ? What if they are happy with the life the way it is ?

[Norsefire]

But if they don't want to ? What if they are happy with the life the way it is ?

People who are already gay today wouldn't be forced into anything. It'd be a medical procedure for future potentially gay people.

[Enmos]

People who are already gay today wouldn't be forced into anything. It'd be a medical procedure for future potentially gay people.

Ah ok.. if the parents want to of course.

[Norsefire]

Ah ok.. if the parents want to of course.

Possibly.

[Cybernetics]

Stryder: my aplogies this is meant as indipendant AI, but im making a thread on the ethics of cybernetic implants and brain digitalisation

I propose that an AI capable machine is set to work 24 7 for centuries, it would have time to think and reason, mayey even form relations with other machines i the area and then it is no longer needed, it would just be melted down.

Then i sugest that you meet a friend on the internet, you have a sentient conversation, would you feel right if the person at the other end was killed since there would be no diference between people and machines exept in face to face contacet?

[sniffy]

Not all men understand the mind but then again it is a specialised subject sniffy.

Quite simply a project would easily be undertaken to attempt the integration of AI with a persons mind, of course the main concerns that usually arise is the medium used. What is the best way to generate a processing loop between the mind and the machine? how long will such a loop take? (If it takes too long then the latency could undermine an overall project)

With such "mnemonics" why stop at "Culturing" AI, why not apply it to use with people that have Parkinsons/Alzheimers, or aid in the Healing of Paralysed or comatosed patients by interfacing with their brain to enduce reoccurant patterns that the body is "use" to using on a day to day basis. (My theorum is that the sooner such treatment is started the more chance for a recovery.)

Their is a hundred and one potential uses for this Posthumanist pipe dream.

Oh Stryder seeing my name emboldened like that made me go all squiffy.

It may be a specialist subject as can any if you go into enough detail but here the OP is considering the implications of the subject becoming a reality. Technologies often evolve way beyond the scope of the original concepts.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'll be first in line when they bring out the cream that will upgrade my memory when I rub it on my temples. I might even consider having the brain implant offering instant recall of the entire catalogue of the British Library but I would like to see a list of the contra-indications beforehand you know?

And all this improving and curing. Will it eventually make humans invincible? The planet is bursting at the seams with us as it is!

[Stryder]

Oh Stryder seeing my name emboldened like that made me go all squiffy.

I could of gone with some bright coloured font, but I thought that may misconstrued that I'm insinuating something rather than actually have a real discussion with someone.

It may be a specialist subject as can any if you go into enough detail but here the OP is considering the implications of the subject becoming a reality. Technologies often evolve way beyond the scope of the original concepts.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'll be first in line when they bring out the cream that will upgrade my memory when I rub it on my temples. I might even consider having the brain implant offering instant recall of the entire catalogue of the British Library but I would like to see a list of the contra-indications beforehand you know?

This is the obvious need for prototyping and testing which as you well know could take decades to achieve decent results. (That's the problem with things like Medicine, companies that produce pills want to see a return on their funding so their testing is sometimes not as thorough as it should be because the quest for return outweighs the "potential" abnormal reactions that occur. This is proven in a number of cases, where companies "Bean count" to fork out settlements for those that have problems related to a drug course, but only after they've made millions, potentially billions in revenue.)

And all this improving and curing. Will it eventually make humans invincible? The planet is bursting at the seams with us as it is!

I wouldn't say we'd be invincible, imagine if you will playing a RPG online. To begin with you will be "Squishy" which basically means you can only handle enemy that's lower in stats to yourself, or you just basically squish, However during your game you can slowly start to "upgrade" your weapons and armour to lessen your squishiness.

I'm suggesting there are potentially stages of "upgrading", which stem from just Interfaces, to Cybernetics and perhaps beyond. (Transhumanist Ascension where a persons life when forfeit [e.g. you die] is then continued within the confines of a machine world, a Virtual Reality. Obviously it sounds far fetched, but it's all about whether people want to achieve it or not.)

Obviously we are probably best resurrecting further discussion in another thread since the OP's pretty much stated they are discussing the implications of true AI possibilities. To be perfectly honest, I don't think there could ever be a true AI because us humans have a nasty habit of writing code which softens the strongest of AI's.

[sniffy]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think there could ever be a true AI because us humans have a nasty habit of writing code which softens the strongest of AI's.

Then you are not factoring in the effects that evolution might have on any AI or human/AI hybrid.

[Stryder]

Well lets put it like this, I see the future of an evolved AI being one that uses Quantum Tunnelling (How I would define it, not necessarily how science defines it), if it uses such a method then you are talking about multiple time points and universes being communicated through at one time. The future of such evolution is likely to involve a Transhumanist Ascension to such a matrix and therefore it would bleed down through the A.I.'s tunnelling.

This is why I don't believe their would be a truly evolved A.I. alone. That and the less radical fact that us humans have all these paranoid delusions where we'd start writing hardcoded rulesets, like for instance Asimov's three laws of Robotics. Obviously mentioning I-Robot right now will take you down that Paranoia path.