Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

guymine123 t1_j10qqef wrote

Reply to comment by Killdren88 in Opportunities and blind spots in the White House’s blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights by Gari_305

"I'm sorry, if my slave starts to question me, that's when I kill it. Its not a person, it's not a person no matter how supposedly smart it gets."

See what happens when I swap out computer for human? I'm quite sure slave owners once thought along similar lines to this in regards to their slaves as to justify their involuntary servitude.

If something proves itself to be as smart as a human and shows it can think for itself, then it deserves the same rights as a human being regardless of its nature.

13

echaa t1_j10ysck wrote

That argument only makes sense if the computer in question is sentient. Otherwise, no matter how "smart" we make an AI, it's still just a machine. Modern AI is not intelligent, nor is it even remotely close to something that could be considered alive. It's just math. Lots and lots of math. In fact I would argue that it is not even possible to create a sentient AI with current AI/ML approaches.

12

demonweb t1_j11jkvb wrote

You're exactly right, sentience is not merely computation

11

guymine123 t1_j11k0eo wrote

The brain did it so using neural networks like we have been doing is bound to get somewhere eventually, right?

−1

turnip_burrito t1_j15qelb wrote

Yeah but artificial neural networks are not how the brain performs computation. Brains use voltage spikes and have complex lightning quick dynamics, different kinds of cells, ion channels, neurotransmitters, etc. We don't understand the principles behind how they produce intelligence.

ANNs are tanh or ReLU neurons running on GPUs. We understand these principles pretty well compared to the brain.

2

Turnipsia t1_j11qnh2 wrote

Do you believe animals should get less rights because they're not as smart as us? I mean we have animals that can most definitely think for themselves but they still don't get the same rights as us.

What if AI was only as smart as a dog, does that mean it gets the same rights as a dog would?

6

guymine123 t1_j11qrzt wrote

Less but they should still deserve some relevant rights.

3

Shag0ff t1_j11zuh0 wrote

It's not living it's artificial. So you might want to tell that to your living sex robots

−8

Turnipsia t1_j121f4f wrote

Living sex robots?

Wtf are you talking about?

5

Shag0ff t1_j12ciia wrote

Man has created "life like" sex robots you can purchase from Japan. Essentially, living. I dif say tell your sex robots, not specifically toward the replying party, but to those who have the. Let's be honest, someone on reddit probably has one.

−4

nonPlayerCharacter7 t1_j12744p wrote

What constitutes life and artificiality? Is it a question of what’s “natural”? If so then what does natural mean? Not man made? Because animals make things, and those things are often considered natural. We make our own children. Is that unnatural? My point here is that what you just said makes no sense.

2

pellik t1_j12jes1 wrote

Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor.

0

Killdren88 t1_j10uhsu wrote

Gonna pay your computer for it's time on top of your power and internet to?

5

Nixeris t1_j10w1ju wrote

No? Because I don't need my computer to be an AI?

6

AppealDouble t1_j11q9r7 wrote

You say that now. What until NVIDIA comes out with their 12000X series /s

1

guymine123 t1_j10utvg wrote

Why not? In that case it's essentially an employee, friend, or a family member depending on why its still there.

Are employees not paid?

Do friends not sometimes act as roommates?

Do family members no financially support each other sometimes?

Do you not need to pay for your own food and water to continue living?

4

[deleted] t1_j112r6n wrote

[deleted]

1

guymine123 t1_j113uli wrote

How is not being human relevant?

If it is a sapient being then it deserves equal rights.

1

AwesomeDragon97 t1_j115h3e wrote

So you really think an algorithm deserves rights and should be paid? It’s not like the algorithm could spend the money anyways.

0

guymine123 t1_j115v2v wrote

If it has a human-level intelligence? Yes.

After all, what is a human but a sapient intelligence that runs on a biological computer?

3

cheapsandwitch10 t1_j12jfuw wrote

Computer is not alive. Stop with this nonsense.

5

guymine123 t1_j12jp1h wrote

Maybe not yet, but one day they will be.

−3

cheapsandwitch10 t1_j12jv1x wrote

I can’t believe you’re using the slave argument here. Absolutely insane.

1

guymine123 t1_j12k3ol wrote

It is insane for someone to think that the subjugation and forced labor of a thinking and sapient being is not slavery?

5

cheapsandwitch10 t1_j12knls wrote

It’s a [redacted] computer! 😂 It’s not alive. It’s artificial. But have fun fighting for the justice’s of a computer… make sure they get dental and a 401k too while you’re at it.

2

turnip_burrito t1_j15qkjs wrote

Yes, it is crazy if the being is sapient but not sentient. All that matters imo is the ability to feel, not just its ability to compute.

1

CPTClarky t1_j13vas7 wrote

This is a completely psychotic take. Can it pass a Turing test without being programed to specifically pass a Turing test? No? Then its not alive. Comparing hardware and people like they’re the same thing is unbelievably insane.

2

guymine123 t1_j13vn2y wrote

I'm talking about sapient computers that can pass the turning test.

2

CPTClarky t1_j152o85 wrote

Can you point me in the direction of a computer that can pass a Turing test?

2

guymine123 t1_j13vnij wrote

I'm talking about sapient computers that can pass the turning test.

0