UK Government Study: Freedom for Robots?

[Hurlshort]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4upvi5ytFI...related&search=

 

[astr0creep]

Sounds like some people have been watching too much Battlestar Galactica.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One can NEVER watch too much Battlestar Galactica.

:D

[Diamond]

What. The. Fudge.

 

Nevermind the fact that we don't know the first thing about how to construct truly intelligent AI.  Nevermind the fact that we still haven't been able to get robots to move gracefully on two legs (at least consistently).  Nevermind the fact that we don't even have the most rudimentary idea on how to generate "consciousness" (nor a definition of what "consciousness" is), or a clue about how the billions of neurons in the human brain connect to form who we are.  Nevermind any of that - let's just give robots rights now, because you never know when they'll need it :D

 

Sounds like some people have been watching too much Battlestar Galactica.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The article is not bothered with the possibility of engineering certain A.I. implementation, but rather considers the "what if" point. It operates with words like "would", "might" and "could".

 

The paper did not address the likelihood such a rights-seeking robot would be developed, and it predicted the issue would not come up for at least another 20 years.

 

Imagine, for example, "if" a 1-to-1 artificial (non-protein based) model of a human is constructed; do they still get the machine/slave rights because they are made of different material?

 

Of course, giving human rights to any of the current AI realizations is retarded, but hey, everyone was thinking that TV is a crazy idea before it became mainstream.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

As far as I'm concerned, a robot has no more right to rights than does my PC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

On the other hand, I should have the right to sue my PC for every single BSOD it's been giving me lately.

[Kroney]

Rights for robots?  LOL.  I think not.  As for the "conscious thought" thing, a robot is not cabable of conscious thought.  A robot is only capable of processing variables that have been programmed into it.  Therefore, a robot can "sue" for its "rights" simply by virtue of that process having been programmed into it.

 

As far as I'm concerned, a robot has no more right to rights than does my PC.

 

My cats, on the other hand, is quite self-aware, cognizant and brilliant.  If they had fingers, they would rule the world.  They deserve rights.  A tangle of bits and bytes does not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think what the link is saying is that if the robot became capable of conscious thought on its own through a sort of evolution. You could program a robot to imitate humans, but imitation is not the same thing as true conscious thought.

 

Chimps can imitate human behaviour and can even learn to communicate with us through training. Are they self-aware? No. They're parroting.

 

The trick *really* is to actually learn what makes us self-aware. To realise what self-awareness actually means. Once we really understand what it is that makes us different to other animals, we'd be better placed to recognise it in sentient, artificial life-forms.

 

I don't think it's impossible for a robot to develop true intelligence, but I do doubt our ability to recognise it when it happens. You look at adaptive programming that is currently in existence and it's not too hard to see it growing to a point where the robot really thinks for itself.

 

Human beings have a certain level of "programming" that we inherited from animals. Urge to pro-create, instinct for survival etc. Both of these things are exhibited by the animal kingdom, yet we are different. Something more, somehow.

 

If we could do it, I see no reason why another programmed entity couldn't. Even an artifical one.

[Sand]

I don't think so. The primate reserve in Des Moines have made great leaps in chimpanzee communication and training. Some have learn how to do pranks on the humans, use complex tools, hold conversations. There is only a minute difference between human and chimp DNA.

[Kroney]

I don't think so.  The primate reserve in Des Moines have made great leaps in chimpanzee communication and training.  Some have learn how to do pranks on the humans, use complex tools, hold conversations.  There is only a minute difference between human and chimp DNA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well ok, but the point was that they're not truly self-aware. At least, I don't think so. I don't think so because no one really knows what self-awareness actually *means*.

[Sand]

It means being aware of yourself and your surroundings beyond the instinctual level.

[Kroney]

It means being aware of yourself and your surroundings beyond the instinctual level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How would you recognise that in someone else? Especially someone of a different species?

[Sand]

Practice. That is one of the reasons why the primate reserve in Des Moines, Iowa was made.

[Kroney]

Practice.  That is one of the reasons why the primate reserve in Des Moines, Iowa was made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Until they can tell us that they have absolutely pinned down what self-awareness is and shown how to recognise it in other species, my point stands.

[Sand]

Nah, your point is only an opinion.

[Kroney]

Nah, your point is only an opinion. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe, but it's valid. Until you can really know what self-awareness is, you cant recognise it in something else. We can recognise it when it's *not* there, but I think most people and humanity in general would be hard-pushed to recognise its existence in something other than a human being.

 

Mainly because they wouldn't know what it was they were actually looking at and the rest would be because of simple prejudice.

[Sand]

I would know.

[alanschu]

I don't think so.  The primate reserve in Des Moines have made great leaps in chimpanzee communication and training.  Some have learn how to do pranks on the humans, use complex tools, hold conversations.  There is only a minute difference between human and chimp DNA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well ok, but the point was that they're not truly self-aware. At least, I don't think so. I don't think so because no one really knows what self-awareness actually *means*.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Am I the only person that found this statement somewhat...odd?

[Sand]

I find this whole forum odd.

[alanschu]

I was speaking relatively.

[Walsingham]

I'd be far happier seeing rights for sentient robots than I am with 'certain' persons killing humans for animal 'rights'. I don't hold with needless cruelty to animals, but I do understand the distinction.

 

Iain M. Banks ahs some interesting things to say about the rise of the machines in his Culture novels. Which are at the end of the evolution, rather than the crisis crossover point.

[Pop]

Since you can't have freedom without peace, and since the Christmas thread is no more, I'll say that I hope you all came together for world peace yesterday. I know I did... twice. I love peace that much.

 

Anywho, off to Memphis for a week. I expect things to go to **** in my absence.

[alanschu]

I'd be far happier seeing rights for sentient robots than I am with 'certain' persons killing humans for animal 'rights'. I don't hold with needless cruelty to animals, but I do understand the distinction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

A big fan of ALF I imagine?

 

 

Give this a few for some very entertaining biased commentary

 

 

EDIT:

 

Hahaha, watching that again, I love the random video splices. It was also editted unfortunately. I wonder if YouTube isn't too keen on the Nazi footage they were showing, because I think they compare the two, since the Peta dude did.

Edited December 23, 2006 by alanschu

[metadigital]

Chimps can imitate human behaviour and can even learn to communicate with us through training. Are they self-aware? No. They're parroting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No.

Hmm, so why not the same rights for all living things?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because humanity hasn't managed to give every human their basic human rights yet, let alone trying to help any other species ...

[Kaftan Barlast]

But.. if there existed a computer that in every way responded to you talking to it exactly like a human(it would seem to get angry if you provoked it, or sad if you abused it and it could hire a lawyer to sue you), but you could see from the code on the screen that it was just processing variables based on your input.. would it be alive? conscious? deserving of rights?

[Gfted1]

Why not. The humand brain does the exact same thing, you just cant see the "code".

[metadigital]

According to Ray Kurzweil's predictions, in less than 40 years humanity will create an artificial intelligence that is greater than the sum of all human "intelligence" ... such that it is.

[DaveK]

Self-awareness or not, I still say f**k em. Robots are robots. We built them, let them serve us. If they do ever become self-aware, I'm sure there will be ways to limit their functionality so that they can't cause any problems.