The ethics of AI

YOU DIE

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bzzz... You're misunderstood. I can just say: 1) A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the Next Law below or Next 2 Law below. Bzzz... I want new bozz... I want ne w bozz... This bozz iz mean... Bzzz...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Stop these childish games.
ISMU of course the laws of Asimov are just... and do in no way relate to slavery. The point was that these laws cannot be programmed into AI. Otherwise it would not be AI, but a next-generation refrigerator.

Take for exaple
1. Love God with your hart, mind and soul
2. You should love your neighbours like you love yourself,
all trhe rest are details.
Seems fairly reasonable. However, I know no christian living by these laws. One would expect God to create his AI with these simple ethical rules if it were possible, would He not?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Merlijn

"Stop these childish games."
Ooookey.

"ISMU of course the laws of Asimov are just... and do in no way relate to slavery. The point was that these laws cannot be programmed into AI. Otherwise it would not be AI, but a next-generation refrigerator."
It dosn't have to. But we can declare war to AI if they don't obey these rules. They MAY NOT refuse.

Btw. I'm going to offline now. C ya tommorrow... i hope.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Maybe the key to this whole problem is not enslaving them or limiting their independent ability (Asimov's laws) but making them intelligent enough to realize that benevolence towards their creators is the best action (assuming it is). I believe that extensive testing should be done, i.e have a human speak to a robot, allow the human to feel the person out, see how we work. We have to know how they will react to us.

If we don't want them to be slaves then we want them to be equals, this means that robots shouldn't be for sale, I'm not sure what they should be for, just a test maybe....it's an intriguing question. If they're not going to be our slaves then what are they going to do, what purpose to we have of creating them on a mass scale if we're not going to profit [financially]?

 

THAT is not going to happen

Humans fear and hate everything different from themselves

if the robots were made in our own image it would be days before our total destruction

If made better then days before the suspention of humans (till they can "re-program" us)

(that was from pine_net B\W)

 

Is there a positive point of having these things around, then, if they're just going to ahnilate us? Slavery seems to be the only answer, even if it is unethical. It's either them or us.

 

Can anyone explain how this is unethical? You have a dog, you keep him in the backyard, you monitor his feeding and his walking - is this unethical???? Its a fu**ing machine, it is not unethical! Just like I said earlier, everyone will be calling "unethical" and pretty soon the damn things will have more rights than us. Doesnt anyone else see this? Im sorry, but we, as a human race, are just asking for it! And we will get everything we deserve!

Sorry, no coffee yet!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

StrGrl,

The dog does not have a level of inteligence that can be considered self-aware, so your analogy doesn't work.

And yes robots will be machines but then so are you. Your parts are simply carbon based, and fragile at that. In a a very real sense you will be physically inferior to the robot.

The consideration of ethics comes down to the issue of an entity that is aware of its own existence and can think as clearly if not better than you. Presumably it will also experience emotions similar to us if it has been based on human style neural networks. So if those aspects are true, then these beings will be superior to you in every sense. In which case what right do you have for enslaving or controlling such things?

Cris

 

Well, I've read your posts and come to the conclusion that you all see AI as a threat to the human race.

When I read Cris's last post I am not so sure that AI can be stopped and actually will become more advanced and more "intelligent" (if that's the right word) than humans. I think it's a rather scary thought that humans in the future upload their minds into a robot.

I see the Earth change in a desert, because Robo-Sapiens won't have a need for food, nor water. So farming, growing crops and fresh drinking water are no longer necessarry and will not be looked after. This Robo-Sapiens will only need some new "soft-ware" every so now and then. What will become of Earth and Nature?

And what the hell are these Robo-Sapiens going to do when everything they want is installed and invented. Upgrade themselves further and further?

I am sorry, I don't think it's ethical to do this. Again, humans behave like creators then and shall meet the opposite of that. There's always another side to everything.

Making slaves of AI Robots will maybe work for a little while. When they have the ability to make their own decisions and conclusions, they will arise and demand equal rights. Then it's only waiting for the time these Robots will take over and humans are the "dogs", so to say. To serve the AI Robots.

I have respect for the work Cris is doing, it just pictures a desolate,and even dangerous picture of the future.

It seems a little boring too. What are you going to do when you live forever inside a Robot? Turn yourself off when you decide you've "lived" long enough?

Will there still be morality, ethics and justice in such a world of Robo-Sapiens? Will people who are acting outside the law automatically not be uploaded into Robo-Sapiens? Is that ethical? Moral just? Or acting like a godlike creator who decides who will and who are not fit for being uploaded...

[EDIT]
Cris, your post above this one is posted while I was typing. I am referring to the other post by you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, cris, we created them, that gives us a bit of an edge I think. There will always be a debate on whether they are machines and mindless or really thinking people.

 

First we need a definition of sentience, and then the problem only arises if/when we decide machines are sentient. If machines/programmes do become sentient at some stage, it would be in our best interest to have a rather equal relationship with them. They will have access to our banking details and production management and so on. And if we each have a personal AI with us all the time, could you imagine if yours kept complaining about not having any rights? Too much bother.

As for those Laws Of Robotics, they are silly. Robots are already being used on battlefields, they reduce the likelihood of the manufacturing nation losing soldiers in battle.

 

Banshee,

I think you have captured the essence of some of the problems, but I suspect my eternal optimism sees things slightly differently.

It’s a form of immortality and humans have been seeking an elixir of life since they could think. Religions offer the same thing – Jesus is claimed to have said ‘believe in me and ye shall have everlasting life’. It is the basic premise of every religion; everyone wants to live forever, but hopefully in paradise. Robo-Sapiens, being virtually indestructive, and without ever feeling pain would be free to live anywhere without fear and find pleasure in almost any environment, be it on this planet or some other.

This will be good news for the Earth, it will return to a wilderness and not a desert. The wilderness is what breathes life into the atmosphere; it is where the wild animals live, areas that we have been systematically destroying for centuries and causing thousands of species to become extinct. The Earth will return to the animals.

Software, hardware, and energy. The Earth will return to its more natural form that existed before we arrived.

There is a vast universe to be explored. At the moment we are tied to this tiny ball and its 24-hour cycle, its gravity, and its plant life. We will finally have the ability and lifespans to take journeys of 1000s of years to travel to distant stars and explore new things. We will become explorers.

We create and destroy many things already and we have always sought to improve ourselves, it is our nature. Ethics? No I don’t think that comesinto this. But to leave the planet to itself so it can evolve without us seems like a good thing – perhaps that is indeed the ethical thing to do.

So far in the history of humanity we have always found new challenges, and with a universe to explore I suspect we have not even begun to find new challenges. Te Earth is our home but we are about to become adults and it is nearly time for us to leave our cribs and venture into the rest of the universe.

The transition from bio life to robo-life I suspect will be traumatic and there may be many who refuse to make the change – that will be there choice, and in a way that may be a good thing as it will preserve a bio-lifeform that will always be limited to live in an earth-like environment. But for those who want to evolve then a bio-life has no future.

Does ethics play a role here? I’ not sure.

Cris

 

Pollux,

Maybe, for a short while, but once the hardware and software become easily available then the genie will be out and can never be returned.

I suspect that intelligence will always find a way to survive and independent AI machines who can evolve (upgrade) themselves faster than us will soon pass the point of allowing us to control them. Even if we program them with benign routines that make them look favorably towards us then that might work for a while, but if they are superior to us then they can easily change that programming themselves. In short, we will rapidly lose control.

And that can only be shown true or false once we have tried it – we shall see.

Cris

 

I have had this discussion many times, or at least posted pieces on the topic, it's one of my favourites... AI.

In Asimov's rule for robots, he placed it forwards as an "Achilles Heel", to make sure his variation of events would have some combative measure.

This is all very well when your discussing a Robot, something that is autonomous and just following a routine program, but this changes when you get to artificial intelligence.

With AI, you have to think of how a child see's right and wrong, and how the AI perceives people interacting with it. I would suspect you would have problems with artificial intelligence if it learnt that it was being abused, and it might attempt something on the abuser if it was given such a capacity.

None the less for people to fear the creation of AI is rediculous, there are many things that could occur in the future which will mean we interact with true intelligence and intelligence is more likely to look at the overall outcome than just a split second whim.

(So if an AI robot learn't to kill a human, another AI would see the outcome of the whole human race going to war over it and finding it to be a waste of resources, time and energy)

The problem that is more likely to occur was slightly touched upon by the Robocop trilogy, along with the Sprawl series and even the Lawnmowerman.
A human being is mapped, with all his neurological pathways into a super-computer system, which then inturn encodes the humans map into a more composited size to run on smaller architectures.

This map of the human brain, functions like the original human to begin with, until it realises that it is now apart of a machine. (In Sprawl this would be a Construct).

You know have a sentient being, created from a mind upload, and housed within a machine. The problem is that the psychology of the individual might have been effected, the psychology of this part human AI could have been adversely effected also.

Not just that but the very thoughts a person has while being mapped could result in something occuring similar to the film Sphere, where they talk to an entity which is one of their subconsciousness's.

(If you werre to analyse this further, you could look at the discussion of the entrapy [Chaos] caused when information travels faster than light, to have a conversation with yourself)

In the AI/Human mergence, the same fate of information could occur. The person could reach higher intelligence, or have the ability to do some 3 Dimensional rendering work, but they would suffer from the entrapy of informtion being parallel processed and transcended to them at the wrong time, creating a form of alzheimers.

I mentioned Sphere to explain that the only thing you would have to fear of AI is Yourself.

 

Adam,

Yup I agree but the timeframe will not be long. Our brains have taken millions of years to evolve to this level of intelligence; the computer hardware that will give rise to AIs equivalent to us will continue to evolve. Our equal partnership with sentient AIs will only be a matter of a few years. What then.

This is the issue that Vernor Vinge emphasizes in his vision of the singularity – a short period of time when technology grows so rapidly that it spawns super-intelligence. After which we will be unable to predict anything further and the human race will cease to be a dominant species and may well cease to exist.

There may well be some AI’s who do not look upon us kindly and might easily seek our destruction and have the ability to achieve it. Our best hope is to evolve at their same rate, and that is where uploading allows us to compete on equal terms. The fear is that AI’s will be here much sooner than uploading and we may never be able to recover, if they are not friendly towards us.

Cris

 

That's true, if it will go like that. What if the Master Robo-Sapiens decide they are threatened by the Wildlife, Animals? And there's another 'thing' which comes to mind here. There are huge Solar Flares at the moment which cause geomagnetic Storms and all what comes with it. This has its influence on life/weather on Earth too.

Inside the AI Robots, there will be a human mind and a human mind has always two sides. We all have a dark side, to say at the least. Where will that lead the Robo-Sapiens if that dark side takes over for one reason or another. History shows, that it's always repeating itself in some sort of way. So then we get a war between Robo-Sapiens. Aren't there any ethics for this? Did you calculate that in?

Now you are saying there will remain humans with a normal bio life and they can live aside the Robo-Sapiens. You really think it will happen this way? Then there's not changing that much, only there's coming another life-form with the already excisting life-form on Earth. Then I see no future for earth in this and who decides who may or may not be uploaded? I think there needs to be more explanation still on this. Only people with money can be uploaded at first, probably. Doesn't say they have the right behaviour/attitude. There will be criminals among the scientists who work on this either. When they are uploaded into an AI unit, you get criminals with eternal life. Isn't that unethical? Won't there be a war fought out in the Universe(s) then, eventually?

Well, maybe I'm wrong here. I know your intentions are good, what about the intentions of others?

My apologies if I sound real dumb here. It just doesn't sound right, somewhere down the line...

 

Star

Please read the post i aimed at you

Banshee

This is not really about putting humans IN robots but having sentanate robots

Adam

It wrong not just because they will be (potentully) stronger than us, its wrong because its unethical to inslave a sentant being just because it is different from us

 

ChatBot

Just for fun. You can try this chatbot:
A.L.I.C.E

(I bet any one who has long enough intersted in A.I has try this before)

This one of todays (immature) stage of AI. Check it out. Try to chat with It normally.

It was claimed has passed Turing test*. You'll be the judge.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You can find more info about It / her here

-------
*Turing test is a standard test for "Speaking" A.I. The basic test is: Someone as the judge try to chat via a pc terminal. People (human) and A.I. response on the other side. If the judge can't tell (think) the difference between human an A.I. responds, it passed.

 

Yep, I agree, slavery sucks. I think we will live in symbiosis with our technology in future, rather than commanding it. But for laws to be created, sentience must be defined.