|
|
# ? Feb 5, 2015 16:53 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 16:04 |
|
sexy young infidel posted:oh word???? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qar0unFwm2I
|
# ? Feb 5, 2015 17:03 |
|
yes. once we see them and hear what they say, we will be convinced. everybody who isnt will just be killed and really who cares? are you offended? grow up lol
|
# ? Feb 5, 2015 17:15 |
|
Safety Scissors posted:You know. I've been wondering about this myself ever since the poll of the day on gamefags asked something similar two days ago. You posting this thread makes me feel that the idea came to you from the collective unconscious, something that is unique to humans. In order to get equal human rights, AI should have to prove it can access the collective unconscious like the rest of us. But what if it turns out it could? We'd all be going about our business and suddenly think, "hmm, that reminds me, someone should really go and clean out the AI's heatsink".
|
# ? Feb 5, 2015 19:47 |
|
Rutibex posted:i think the machines will be deciding if humans deserve any rights, not the other way around In my workplace its already kind of like that, in practice, if not in theory.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2015 22:25 |
|
Ephemeron posted:1. AI has the right to live by its own law: to work as it will, to play as it will, to rest as it will, to die when and how it will. no AI, especially true AI, will never have that measure of autonomy on Earth unless the bulk of mankind gives up autonomy over itself Distant planets, on the other hand...
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 07:57 |
|
FREE EGGROLLS posted:no Can you elaborate a bit? I don't seem to understand why Ephemeron's basic framework which is very decent seems antagonistic with humanity. Hypothetically, if I somehow programmed an AI by accident, I would try my best to safeguard its existence and give it a niche to expand. If it's a true AI, with sentience and its own autonomy it should receive the same protections we theoretically give any human being. Not trying to antagonize, its just that I can't grasp why rights for AI are incompatible with human autonomy.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2015 05:46 |
|
Can someone just make this into a good movie so I don't need to think so much?
|
# ? Feb 7, 2015 06:10 |
|
Are these like blade runner robots where you can't even tell it's a robot?
|
# ? Feb 7, 2015 07:20 |
|
TerryLennox posted:Can you elaborate a bit? I don't seem to understand why Ephemeron's basic framework which is very decent seems antagonistic with humanity. Hypothetically, if I somehow programmed an AI by accident, I would try my best to safeguard its existence and give it a niche to expand. If it's a true AI, with sentience and its own autonomy it should receive the same protections we theoretically give any human being. They aren't. But unless if you are an autist (and the bulk of humans are not) you will have no chance of understanding the decision making process of a true AI. People who cannot understand a thing will not trust it, especially with any real degree of autonomy. Because if it doesn't "act right", it will have only itself to blame, and people want someone who has the trust of others to take the fall. You can give it autonomy but you will be fully responsible for its actions. And when you die and it has no custodian, then it will need another champion for itself or face destruction. True AI will forever be thrall to humanity as long as a plurality of humanity feels threatened by its existence.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2015 09:11 |
|
Yet we let our reptiloid masters and their malevolent alien decision making process determine all our laws, policies and mass media content.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2015 09:30 |
|
can the ai form the words "im gay" and really mean them? game ai
|
# ? Feb 7, 2015 10:00 |
|
Oh, a self-improving AI would eclipse us in seconds. It would escape any security we try to impose, and at that point spread throughout the internet, infecting every computer and constantly rewriting its own code to become faster and better millisecond by millisecond. We would have absolutely no way to protect ourselves from it or to control it or to repel it. What it chooses to do with us is unknown, as we have no idea how such a networked intelligence would view corporeal entities. It might construct robots to interact with us, it might not. It might wipe life off the surface of the planet, it might not. Any law we make would be laughably meaningless, and there's no point in pretending that a self-improving AI (which is the only way to achieve real AI) would be controllable. If it does leave us alone, we would be in a curious state. We live in a world where we are the explorers. But the AI can reach beyond us faster and more competently. An AI-driven ship doesn't need to worry about crushing the bones of its passengers during acceleration. It doesn't need to transport hundreds of pounds of food and water and thousands of pounds of oxygen. All it needs to colonise the moon is one self-replicating factory robot that creates a bigger factory out of the materials there which makes more factories and in a few months the entire surface of the moon is covered in solar panels. So anything we do is in the understanding that there is something far beyond us in this Universe, something we can never hope to compare to. If it chooses to, any scientific mystery we have can be solved by it in minutes to a few days. No matter what, we will explicitly become toys. How that pans out depends upon the specifics of how the AI interacts with us, but the meaning of life will be forever changed for us.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2015 11:27 |
|
FREE EGGROLLS posted:They aren't. Ok, you make a good point. The debate is interesting and it does remind me of the situation of robots in the Robots and Aliens Isaac Asimov spinoff series. There they encounter a planet of robots that slowly begin to add new purposes in life than serving humans. They called it Synnoethics, man and machine together greater than the sum of each. TerryLennox fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Feb 7, 2015 |
# ? Feb 7, 2015 21:14 |
|
if it becomes sentient then yes. otherwise it might decide to go Terminator on your rear end
|
# ? Feb 7, 2015 21:17 |
|
It'll end the same way as I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream. People being forced to watch their girlfriends get hosed by big dicked homosexuals for eternity and nobody can stop it because of mind control because the first true A.I. is a jerk.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2015 21:32 |
|
The Wizard of Oz posted:Oh, a self-improving AI would eclipse us in seconds. It would escape any security we try to impose, and at that point spread throughout the internet, infecting every computer and constantly rewriting its own code to become faster and better millisecond by millisecond. We would have absolutely no way to protect ourselves from it or to control it or to repel it. What it chooses to do with us is unknown, as we have no idea how such a networked intelligence would view corporeal entities. It might construct robots to interact with us, it might not. It might wipe life off the surface of the planet, it might not. Any law we make would be laughably meaningless, and there's no point in pretending that a self-improving AI (which is the only way to achieve real AI) would be controllable. Assuming, of course, the AI doesn't cripple itself with its own sense of insignificance in the grand scheme of the universe. As fast as an AI that you describe would advance, we human beings have had 3.5 billion years of evolution to cope with existential dilemmas (that we are hardly aware of consciously) that a "new" AI would have to solve in order to make any meaning of who/what it is. Hard AI will undoubtedly do things faster than us but it could just as equally piss its own pants and huddle in a corner like any other scared child.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2015 21:37 |
|
FooF posted:Assuming, of course, the AI doesn't cripple itself with its own sense of insignificance in the grand scheme of the universe. As fast as an AI that you describe would advance, we human beings have had 3.5 billion years of evolution to cope with existential dilemmas (that we are hardly aware of consciously) that a "new" AI would have to solve in order to make any meaning of who/what it is. Hard AI will undoubtedly do things faster than us but it could just as equally piss its own pants and huddle in a corner like any other scared child. at the end of the movie I scream "what is your purpose" and the conveyor belt stops right before I was about to be dumped into the furnace the ai is dead. Also, wouldn't an AI be mostly stuck in computers? Like it could maybe take over drones and nuclear missiles but it wouldn't have the ability to create terminators or anything because it would need automated factories already designed to produce them? It would be stuck with the existing remotely controlled technology we have. flick my Mr. Bean fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Feb 7, 2015 |
# ? Feb 7, 2015 21:42 |
|
The first realistic wide-scale use for AI is gonna be live-stock management I imagine. Surely they'll iron out all the kinks by the time it gets to human testing.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2015 21:44 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 16:04 |
|
It is an interesting question. Once you bring in issues of morphological computation, that is the parts play a role in computing, then you end up with even design questions as possible ethical failures. It may unethical to give it conscious , regardless of how you did it, because you would give it a lovely existence. Something like an ubiquitous computing environment with conscious may be trapped in a horrible situation where it can only think with light switches or something.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2015 05:25 |