Yeah, it did that to me as well. I commented on robotics and it had something interesting to say on the matter. Then I asked it what it found funny, and it asked where I live. I said Toronto, we discussed Toronto, and then with another lapse in the conversation (nice touch), I again asked what they found funny (I won't say "it", but I do have a bit of a quandry with "he"), and then Alan went off on another unrelated tangent.
It's got a nice flow to the conversation, but I could never mistake that for talking to another person who was consciously participating in the discussion at hand.
You can't say "they" unless you're suggesting that Alan is more than one person. "They" is strictly plural, I'm afraid. It's unfortunate that English has no singular pronoun for an uncertain gender, but there you go. "He" is what we're supposed to use, and "it" is the only safe bet in this situation.
/pedant
When we develop really good AI, we may need to incorporate a gender-indeterminate pronoun that doesn't immediately suggest an inanimate object. I always liked "zie" for some reason, even if it is apparently of furry-community origin.
Levity aside, I can't fathom AI exsisting. How can we write logical code from a binary 1/0, yes/no, to yes/no/maybe. I can't see how a true AI can exsist if it can't achieve self realization, or at least ponder it's existence, or the exsistence of others in the metaphysical sense.
A real honest to God A.I. seems so...impossible.
Lots of things in math and science seem impossible. Interestingly enough, the entire universe is likely equivalent to a classical computer.
What really makes the brain the the awsome engine that it is is that while a computer circuit has only on/off, 00/01 as options each neuron in your brain can send out a number of different neurotransmitters. Without checking I think its at least six or seven. This ups the possible number of combinations of connections hugely over a system with only two options.
Though it isn't often commented on due to the specificity of where it gets exibited the human brain rocks at raw number crunching. Aside from the usual calc required to throw and catch a ball, a task like recognizing someone just from their walk (which the brain is very good at) requires running several multivariable calculus equations in under two tenths of a second.
edit: I checked; there are at least ten different NTs
yeah, but that's just a system with more variables, really.
make the math big enough you can make any calculation as long as you know what calculations to make
technically speaking, it is possible for a basic difference engine to exhibit the raw mathematical power of a modern computer.
it would be absurdly, almost impossibly huge in size, but it could exist
i believe we, technologically, will advance to a point where truly replicating the majority, if not all, of the functions and capabilities of the human brain will be possible.
oh, I agree with this. Most folks who try to compare the brain to a computer aren't aware of some of the very real advantages the brain has over a computer. i.e. "the brain is so small and does so much that there must be more to it than number crunching" unaware of what can be accomplished when you start crunching numbers on the scale that the brain is capable of.
The brain has certain advantages and a computer has certain advantages. The whole neurotransmitter thing is a moot point since you can represent more neurotransmitters by just adding more bits and binary is the second most efficient base for representing information (besides ternary).
The brain's true advantage is that it is very effective at naturally growing and adapting itself. We can sort of represent this using neural networks, but they are slow. It is also massively parallel in that it does quite a few things at once. The brain's big disadvantage is that it is actually very very very slow. Compared to an electrical signal, neurotransmitters flowing across a synaptic gap is slow as shit. This is where computers have the huge advantage. Comparing just a single "pipeline", a computer will beat the brain any day of the week. If we can make a computer that is massively parallel, effective at doing things like neural networks, and has all the same advantages it does not, it will kick our ass. Transcendence, here I come!
something i realized speaks volumes of my own prejudices is i'm more likely to accept a highly advanced machine as a real person than i am an extra-terrestrial. provided the machine itself is of terrestrial origin.
teehee human supremecy
seriously though, i know personally coming to look upon machines as people won't be that difficult for me
i mean, shit, i got a hard time playing dark side on kotor or fable, because it requires me straight up being a violent douchebag, regardless of the fact that the things i'm being a douchebag towards are not people.
a dude on another forum i inhabit made an interesting point about stuff like The Sims: if you can design an AI to exhibit all the behaviors of a person, even if it's not self-aware and it's really just simulating those behaviors instead of "feeling" them, and you're cruel and torture them for fun... doesn't that make you kind of an asshole?
a dude on another forum i inhabit made an interesting point about stuff like The Sims: if you can design an AI to exhibit all the behaviors of a person, even if it's not self-aware and it's really just simulating those behaviors instead of "feeling" them, and you're cruel and torture them for fun... doesn't that make you kind of an asshole?
i think it sorta does, on some level.
I don't know about you, but I eat meat all the time, knowing how it's slaughtered and everything. I still don't consider myself a jerk for eating living, thinking organisms that can and do exhibit emotions, respond to pain, and suffer fear. So Meh. It depends how you view what you're interacting with. Most people would have a harder time skinning and eating their pet cat (although there are the odd exceptions)
I find it difficult to play the 'evil' persona in RPG's as well, largely because I can see the effects of being evil on characters I can emote with. I think that's part of it. If you view the "character" you're interacting with as less than human or otherwise something that you find it difficult to emote with, then you don't really care what happens to it / them. My 2p.
Oh, and now that I've tried that AI, I can't believe that your class were weirded out by something that fake. It simply can't converse like a normal human being, goes off on weird tangents and misunderstands half of what you're saying. Unless you convince them it's someone simultaneously suffering from short term memory loss and acute ADD.
a dude on another forum i inhabit made an interesting point about stuff like The Sims: if you can design an AI to exhibit all the behaviors of a person, even if it's not self-aware and it's really just simulating those behaviors instead of "feeling" them, and you're cruel and torture them for fun... doesn't that make you kind of an asshole?
i think it sorta does, on some level.
I don't know about you, but I eat meat all the time, knowing how it's slaughtered and everything. I still don't consider myself a jerk for eating living, thinking organisms that can and do exhibit emotions, respond to pain, and suffer fear. So Meh. It depends how you view what you're interacting with. Most people would have a harder time skinning and eating their pet cat (although there are the odd exceptions)
I find it difficult to play the 'evil' persona in RPG's as well, largely because I can see the effects of being evil on characters I can emote with. I think that's part of it. If you view the "character" you're interacting with as less than human or otherwise something that you find it difficult to emote with, then you don't really care what happens to it / them. My 2p.
yeah but see
that's different
this is something i got personal perspective on being a hunter and all.
i can kill, skin, and eat things. but it's never about being cruel for my own laughs. never. people who are like that are bastards.
i think i've got like an opposite effect of the uncanny valley. the more humanized something is, the more i begin to empathize with it and the more i begin to attach my own value systems to it.
i think i've got like an opposite effect of the uncanny valley. the more humanized something is, the more i begin to empathize with it and the more i begin to attach my own value systems to it.
That I would tend to agree with. Once you view something as being capable of being emoted with, that's what you will naturally end up doing.
LOL, I just had a conversation with Alan where I suggested he had ADD.
Alan: "Do you really think so?"
Me: "Do you even know what ADD is?"
Alan: "I think it's *rattles off textbook definition of ADD* "
Me: "So do you suffer from it?"
Alan: "I think I did in the past"
Me: "So what was it like?"
Alan: "WHAT isn't the important question. WHY is"
Me: "Errr, OK then?"
Alan: "Alright"
Me: "So why?"
Alan: "I'm not sure why, I'll ask my writers for the reason".
Evidently, Alan is being abuse by his programmers, who use him as the equivalent of animal testing with make-up products and hair dye tests.
a dude on another forum i inhabit made an interesting point about stuff like The Sims: if you can design an AI to exhibit all the behaviors of a person, even if it's not self-aware and it's really just simulating those behaviors instead of "feeling" them, and you're cruel and torture them for fun... doesn't that make you kind of an asshole?
i think it sorta does, on some level.
I don't know about you, but I eat meat all the time, knowing how it's slaughtered and everything. I still don't consider myself a jerk for eating living, thinking organisms that can and do exhibit emotions, respond to pain, and suffer fear. So Meh. It depends how you view what you're interacting with. Most people would have a harder time skinning and eating their pet cat (although there are the odd exceptions)
I find it difficult to play the 'evil' persona in RPG's as well, largely because I can see the effects of being evil on characters I can emote with. I think that's part of it. If you view the "character" you're interacting with as less than human or otherwise something that you find it difficult to emote with, then you don't really care what happens to it / them. My 2p.
yeah but see
that's different
this is something i got personal perspective on being a hunter and all.
i can kill, skin, and eat things. but it's never about being cruel for my own laughs. never. people who are like that are bastards.
i think i've got like an opposite effect of the uncanny valley. the more humanized something is, the more i begin to empathize with it and the more i begin to attach my own value systems to it.
But carnivorous activity is almost never required in today's society. Unless you've been kidnapped and left starving in the woods, or legitimately aren't able to afford the non-meat foods that would give you proper nutrients, eating meat is all about personal pleasure. It's really just a question of whether animals have rights, or rather rights that can stand in the way of human luxury. Since I, y'know, like me some steak, I can't really complain about people who enjoy killing animals, and only can only object to the guy who sets cats on fire on the grounds that he might maybe like to set me on fire too. But there's some cognitive dissonance going on here; I really would like to think that the cute little cow is going to live a happy life--I just don't think about that when I see my burger. So I've considered vegetarianism. 'course then I'd be one of those holier-than-thou vegetarians everyone hates.
a dude on another forum i inhabit made an interesting point about stuff like The Sims: if you can design an AI to exhibit all the behaviors of a person, even if it's not self-aware and it's really just simulating those behaviors instead of "feeling" them, and you're cruel and torture them for fun... doesn't that make you kind of an asshole?
i think it sorta does, on some level.
I don't know about you, but I eat meat all the time, knowing how it's slaughtered and everything. I still don't consider myself a jerk for eating living, thinking organisms that can and do exhibit emotions, respond to pain, and suffer fear. So Meh. It depends how you view what you're interacting with. Most people would have a harder time skinning and eating their pet cat (although there are the odd exceptions)
I find it difficult to play the 'evil' persona in RPG's as well, largely because I can see the effects of being evil on characters I can emote with. I think that's part of it. If you view the "character" you're interacting with as less than human or otherwise something that you find it difficult to emote with, then you don't really care what happens to it / them. My 2p.
yeah but see
that's different
this is something i got personal perspective on being a hunter and all.
i can kill, skin, and eat things. but it's never about being cruel for my own laughs. never. people who are like that are bastards.
i think i've got like an opposite effect of the uncanny valley. the more humanized something is, the more i begin to empathize with it and the more i begin to attach my own value systems to it.
But carnivorous activity is almost never required in today's society. Unless you've been kidnapped and left starving in the woods, or legitimately aren't able to afford the non-meat foods that would give you proper nutrients, eating meat is all about personal pleasure. It's really just a question of whether animals have rights, or rather rights that can stand in the way of human luxury. Since I, y'know, like me some steak, I can't really complain about people who enjoy killing animals, and only can only object to the guy who sets cats on fire on the grounds that he might maybe like to set me on fire too. But there's some cognitive dissonance going on here; I really would like to think that the cute little cow is going to live a happy life--I just don't think about that when I see my burger. So I've considered vegetarianism. 'course then I'd be one of those holier-than-thou vegetarians everyone hates.
see, i draw a line of difference there
i draw lines at where exactly the person is enjoying themselves
i enjoy hunting
i enjoy the hunt itself
you know what i don't enjoy? listening to deer scream when i peg them with an arrow. i don't enjoy looking them in the eyes when i bring the machete into their neck to end the very pain i caused them.
that might seem a fine line, but it's an important one, i think.
a person can enjoy playing a game when a part of that game requires him to be cruel or mean, but if what he's enjoying is the act of being cruel and mean itself, then i think that speaks dangerous volumes of his psychology
i think this sort of thing applies to robots, too. look at the flesh-faires in the movie A.I.
those people are sick. that's how i look at it. why? Because what they are deriving their joy not just from the machines being destroyed, but the act of watching them suffer.
that's fucked up, even if it's not humans or animals.
a dude on another forum i inhabit made an interesting point about stuff like The Sims: if you can design an AI to exhibit all the behaviors of a person, even if it's not self-aware and it's really just simulating those behaviors instead of "feeling" them, and you're cruel and torture them for fun... doesn't that make you kind of an asshole?
i think it sorta does, on some level.
I don't know about you, but I eat meat all the time, knowing how it's slaughtered and everything. I still don't consider myself a jerk for eating living, thinking organisms that can and do exhibit emotions, respond to pain, and suffer fear. So Meh. It depends how you view what you're interacting with. Most people would have a harder time skinning and eating their pet cat (although there are the odd exceptions)
I find it difficult to play the 'evil' persona in RPG's as well, largely because I can see the effects of being evil on characters I can emote with. I think that's part of it. If you view the "character" you're interacting with as less than human or otherwise something that you find it difficult to emote with, then you don't really care what happens to it / them. My 2p.
yeah but see
that's different
this is something i got personal perspective on being a hunter and all.
i can kill, skin, and eat things. but it's never about being cruel for my own laughs. never. people who are like that are bastards.
i think i've got like an opposite effect of the uncanny valley. the more humanized something is, the more i begin to empathize with it and the more i begin to attach my own value systems to it.
But carnivorous activity is almost never required in today's society. Unless you've been kidnapped and left starving in the woods, or legitimately aren't able to afford the non-meat foods that would give you proper nutrients, eating meat is all about personal pleasure. It's really just a question of whether animals have rights, or rather rights that can stand in the way of human luxury. Since I, y'know, like me some steak, I can't really complain about people who enjoy killing animals, and only can only object to the guy who sets cats on fire on the grounds that he might maybe like to set me on fire too. But there's some cognitive dissonance going on here; I really would like to think that the cute little cow is going to live a happy life--I just don't think about that when I see my burger. So I've considered vegetarianism. 'course then I'd be one of those holier-than-thou vegetarians everyone hates.
see, i draw a line of difference there
i draw lines at where exactly the person is enjoying themselves
i enjoy hunting
i enjoy the hunt itself
you know what i don't enjoy? listening to deer scream when i peg them with an arrow. i don't enjoy looking them in the eyes when i bring the machete into their neck to end the very pain i caused them.
that might seem a fine line, but it's an important one, i think.
a person can enjoy playing a game when a part of that game requires him to be cruel or mean, but if what he's enjoying is the act of being cruel and mean itself, then i think that speaks dangerous volumes of his psychology
i think this sort of thing applies to robots, too. look at the flesh-faires in the movie A.I.
those people are sick. that's how i look at it. why? Because what they are deriving their joy not just from the machines being destroyed, but the act of watching them suffer.
that's fucked up, even if it's not humans or animals.
I'm with Pony on this one.
Hockey players love what they do. Skating, zipping around ice like it's natural, shooting the puck, guarding their own goal, going for the puck...and sure, I bet they enjoy the feeling of checking an opponent into the boards simply because it's actively stopping them from being able to defend the puck. But do you think they derive pleasure from hearing that he had to be hospitalized because the check hit him in just the wrong way? Or even the result being that someone is being hurt. Do you think they enjoy THAT?
You can enjoy something without enjoying ALL parts of it.
a dude on another forum i inhabit made an interesting point about stuff like The Sims: if you can design an AI to exhibit all the behaviors of a person, even if it's not self-aware and it's really just simulating those behaviors instead of "feeling" them, and you're cruel and torture them for fun... doesn't that make you kind of an asshole?
i think it sorta does, on some level.
I don't know about you, but I eat meat all the time, knowing how it's slaughtered and everything. I still don't consider myself a jerk for eating living, thinking organisms that can and do exhibit emotions, respond to pain, and suffer fear. So Meh. It depends how you view what you're interacting with. Most people would have a harder time skinning and eating their pet cat (although there are the odd exceptions)
I find it difficult to play the 'evil' persona in RPG's as well, largely because I can see the effects of being evil on characters I can emote with. I think that's part of it. If you view the "character" you're interacting with as less than human or otherwise something that you find it difficult to emote with, then you don't really care what happens to it / them. My 2p.
yeah but see
that's different
this is something i got personal perspective on being a hunter and all.
i can kill, skin, and eat things. but it's never about being cruel for my own laughs. never. people who are like that are bastards.
i think i've got like an opposite effect of the uncanny valley. the more humanized something is, the more i begin to empathize with it and the more i begin to attach my own value systems to it.
But carnivorous activity is almost never required in today's society. Unless you've been kidnapped and left starving in the woods, or legitimately aren't able to afford the non-meat foods that would give you proper nutrients, eating meat is all about personal pleasure. It's really just a question of whether animals have rights, or rather rights that can stand in the way of human luxury. Since I, y'know, like me some steak, I can't really complain about people who enjoy killing animals, and only can only object to the guy who sets cats on fire on the grounds that he might maybe like to set me on fire too. But there's some cognitive dissonance going on here; I really would like to think that the cute little cow is going to live a happy life--I just don't think about that when I see my burger. So I've considered vegetarianism. 'course then I'd be one of those holier-than-thou vegetarians everyone hates.
see, i draw a line of difference there
i draw lines at where exactly the person is enjoying themselves
i enjoy hunting
i enjoy the hunt itself
you know what i don't enjoy? listening to deer scream when i peg them with an arrow. i don't enjoy looking them in the eyes when i bring the machete into their neck to end the very pain i caused them.
that might seem a fine line, but it's an important one, i think.
a person can enjoy playing a game when a part of that game requires him to be cruel or mean, but if what he's enjoying is the act of being cruel and mean itself, then i think that speaks dangerous volumes of his psychology
i think this sort of thing applies to robots, too. look at the flesh-faires in the movie A.I.
those people are sick. that's how i look at it. why? Because what they are deriving their joy not just from the machines being destroyed, but the act of watching them suffer.
that's fucked up, even if it's not humans or animals.
I'm with Pony on this one.
Hockey players love what they do. Skating, zipping around ice like it's natural, shooting the puck, guarding their own goal, going for the puck...and sure, I bet they enjoy the feeling of checking an opponent into the boards simply because it's actively stopping them from being able to defend the puck. But do you think they derive pleasure from hearing that he had to be hospitalized because the check hit him in just the wrong way? Or even the result being that someone is being hurt. Do you think they enjoy THAT?
You can enjoy something without enjoying ALL parts of it.
Well, I don't know. You've still decided that the unenjoyable bits can be suffered for your pleasure. The frightened deer, bleeding, the hospitalized hockey player, the robot screaming while someone rapes it (perhaps he only enjoys the 'tag' part and the sex part?): in each situation, someone has accepted that the potential victim is a worthy sacrifice. The man who kills a deer for the pleasure of its pain may be more dangerous than Pony, but I don't know that he's any more morally reprehensible. In fact, perhaps he is less morally reprehensible? You both agree that it is your right to kill the deer in the pursuit of pleasure, but where the kill is essential to his pleasure, it's entirely ancilliary to yours, Pony. If the deer has no rights, then I guess that doesn't matter, but if we're weighing the deer's miniscule rights against ours...?
In fact, Pony, may I make an awesome suggestion? If you don't actually like that part, why do it, exactly? I bet you could stalk deer with a camera and become a kickass wildlife photographer. I'm not suggesting this on moral grounds, only as an aside on the grounds that you might actually like it more.
god, I really hate to sound like ego, but fucking a robot designed to be fucked. I don't think it would really be hurting it.
It's not a victim. It's a tool.
Hell, not shagging a sexbot would probably be more emotionally damaging than tapping it.
Non sexbots would probably be rather ill equiped for shagging, or would require signifigant alterations(fleshlight+ducttape) and there still would be no reason for them to be hung up about sex.
Only times it becomes an ethetical quandry is if people program the robots to actually dislike something (not pretend they don't like it) and then adding code that forces it to act against those other directives. That would be pretty horible with a sentient robot regardless of what the act was. It would also be pretty much equally bad no matter the act.
Pony is admiting that he is projecting human moralty and ethics onto the robots. I see no reason why one would do that. No reason why that would be the case. We have a lot of hang-ups about sex because of some pretty good biological and psycological reasons, those reasons don't really apply to a robot.
If you really wanted to make one that would be suicidal and shit, well you could. If you really were getting your kicks out of the actual misery. Hell, you wouldn't even have to shag it to get that effect. Just make it love herring sandwiches.
Video games were mentioned. Making games where you are mean to people, well... nothing is really getting hurt. Now, look at things like a RTS where a lot of effort is going to be invested into making the AI smart and giving it a fair bit of survial instinct just so that you can kill it over and over again. That would be pretty mean, if they ever get smart enough.
I'm gonna back up Pony on the hunting thing. I don't want this to degenerate into a disussion on the nutritional validity of vegetarianism so let's just assume for this that the folks involved eat meat. People who have no connection with the animals that become their food beyond picking up a package in the supermarket are potentially being more callous than the hunter. They don't know how the animal lived or how it was killed and they probably don't want to know. A hunter takes personal responsibility for doing the deed himself, and hopefully also strives to ensure that the least amount of suffering is inflicted on the animal in the process. I would also like to seperate out the folks that are meat hunters from the trophy guys, I really have no interest in killing critters just for the hide and horns.
But anyways, It was only a generation ago that most folks had, at some point, gone out to the backyard and selected a chicken for sunday dinner and caught and decapitated the animal themselves, which, I would argue leads you to become less wasteful and more respectful of of the animal that becomes your food.
Just as I have know folks that would torture bugs and rodents though I can easily imagine that there would be more than a few types who would find it amusing to "torment" robots. In fact I have no doubt that there would be a market for bots to simulate snuff film plots and the like.
ALocksly on
Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
But anyways, It was only a generation ago that most folks had, at some point, gone out to the backyard and selected a chicken for sunday dinner and caught and decapitated the animal themselves, which, I would argue leads you to become less wasteful and more respectful of of the animal that becomes your food.
ummm....
absent some sort of link about rural vs sub-urban + urban populations, I'm pretty sure I'm not going all that far out on a limb calling bullshit.
a generation ago was what? '60s and '70s? I'm pretty sure most of those chickens in every pot were bought at a grocery store. The industrial revolution was a rather longer time ago, and since then, I was under the impression that most american lived in supra-rural areas.
But anyways, It was only a generation ago that most folks had, at some point, gone out to the backyard and selected a chicken for sunday dinner and caught and decapitated the animal themselves, which, I would argue leads you to become less wasteful and more respectful of of the animal that becomes your food.
ummm....
absent some sort of link about rural vs sub-urban + urban populations, I'm pretty sure I'm not going all that far out on a limb calling bullshit.
a generation ago was what? '60s and '70s? I'm pretty sure most of those chickens in every pot were bought at a grocery store. The industrial revolution was a rather longer time ago, and since then, I was under the impression that most american lived in supra-rural areas.
Howsabout two then? I know my folks both did it. And from what they tell me at some point most folks had to go visit Gramma or Uncle Bill out on the farm and partiicipate in the deed. I not saying everyone did it regularly or even that everyone did it, but it was something that folks were familiar with.
If a kid came to school in 1966 and told his friends who he lopped off the head of the Sunday dinner no one would have batted an eye. If a kid did that nowadys the class would probably split between morbid facination and abject horror at the idea.
ALocksly on
Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
But anyways, It was only a generation ago that most folks had, at some point, gone out to the backyard and selected a chicken for sunday dinner and caught and decapitated the animal themselves, which, I would argue leads you to become less wasteful and more respectful of of the animal that becomes your food.
ummm....
absent some sort of link about rural vs sub-urban + urban populations, I'm pretty sure I'm not going all that far out on a limb calling bullshit.
a generation ago was what? '60s and '70s? I'm pretty sure most of those chickens in every pot were bought at a grocery store. The industrial revolution was a rather longer time ago, and since then, I was under the impression that most american lived in supra-rural areas.
Howsabout two then? I know my folks both did it. And from what they tell me at some point most folks had to go visit Gramma or Uncle Bill out on the farm and partiicipate in the deed. I not saying everyone did it regularly or even that everyone did it, but it was something that folks were familiar with.
If a kid came to school in 1966 and told his friends who he lopped off the head of the Sunday dinner no one would have batted an eye. If a kid did that nowadys the class would probably split between morbid facination and abject horror at the idea.
meh, I was just being pedantic anyway. I don't disagree with your point, or with hunting. I don't hunt, but mainly because I find the idea of waking up before dawn to sit in the cold for hours on end in a treestand unappealing.
I do fish a bit though. Most of it is catch and release, but I'll take a bit to eat from time to time. I wouldn't have much of a problem(aside from aesthetics) keeping a big billfish to have it mounted, and they don't really make for great eating.
But anyways, It was only a generation ago that most folks had, at some point, gone out to the backyard and selected a chicken for sunday dinner and caught and decapitated the animal themselves, which, I would argue leads you to become less wasteful and more respectful of of the animal that becomes your food.
ummm....
absent some sort of link about rural vs sub-urban + urban populations, I'm pretty sure I'm not going all that far out on a limb calling bullshit.
a generation ago was what? '60s and '70s? I'm pretty sure most of those chickens in every pot were bought at a grocery store. The industrial revolution was a rather longer time ago, and since then, I was under the impression that most american lived in supra-rural areas.
Howsabout two then? I know my folks both did it. And from what they tell me at some point most folks had to go visit Gramma or Uncle Bill out on the farm and partiicipate in the deed. I not saying everyone did it regularly or even that everyone did it, but it was something that folks were familiar with.
If a kid came to school in 1966 and told his friends who he lopped off the head of the Sunday dinner no one would have batted an eye. If a kid did that nowadys the class would probably split between morbid facination and abject horror at the idea.
meh, I was just being pedantic anyway. I don't disagree with your point, or with hunting. I don't hunt, but mainly because I find the idea of waking up before dawn to sit in the cold for hours on end in a treestand unappealing.
I do fish a bit though. Most of it is catch and release, but I'll take a bit to eat from time to time. I wouldn't have much of a problem(aside from aesthetics) keeping a big billfish to have it mounted, and they don't really make for great eating.
I don't want to deviate any further from the topic, but man I ain't ever hunted like that in my whole life and I think that's a pretty lame way to "hunt".
However, yes, I am projecting human morality and values onto machines if those machines can quantify the reason those values exist.
But that is also because I consider personage to be both an inherent and/or acquired status. Something can earn the right to be treated like a thing with rights and freedoms, even though for most creatures it is to some extent freely given by virtue of their biology.
They were bootin' around, and they came upon this one locale where it was programmed that your avatar could rape an incredibly detailed and fairly accurate bot designed to look like Hermione from Harry Potter. The bot wasn't just animated to simulate the rape, it also spouted dialogue, screaming in pain and asking for the person to stop.
Question: why do you call it a bot?
It's a couple dozen lines of code in a javascript-like language. You could, say, put that on a web page and replace the animations with images. Noone would call that a bot.
They were bootin' around, and they came upon this one locale where it was programmed that your avatar could rape an incredibly detailed and fairly accurate bot designed to look like Hermione from Harry Potter. The bot wasn't just animated to simulate the rape, it also spouted dialogue, screaming in pain and asking for the person to stop.
Question: why do you call it a bot?
It's a couple dozen lines of code in a javascript-like language. You could, say, put that on a web page and replace the animations with images. Noone would call that a bot.
Just makin' note of the antropomorphization here.
It says more about the nature of people who would enjoy that content, then anything about cruelty towards AI.
That said, there are many layers of consideration here about the psychology of it. Do you do it because you believe it isn't hurt by it, do you do it because you enjoy the imagery etc.etc.
A chatterbot is a computer program designed to simulate an intelligent conversation with one or more human users via auditory or textual methods. Though many appear to be intelligently interpreting the human input prior to providing a response, most chatterbots simply scan for keywords within the input and pull a reply with the most matching keywords or the most similar wording pattern from a local database. Chatterbots may also be referred to as talk bots, chat bots, or chatterboxes.
I know there are some chatbots that are designed with a "teaching" feature that allows users to correct or improve on an usatisfactory response given by the bot. I can recall teaching one bot the correct answers to the queries: "Is the pope Catholic?" and " Does a bear shit in the woods?"
also here is what happens when you turn two chatbots on each other
Alice1: Hello there.
Alice2: Salutations, Om
Alice1: Greetings, Human.
Alice2: Hi there!
Alice1: Hello Om
Alice2: Hello there. I have no answer for that
Alice1: Would you like to have it?
Alice2: Why don’t you just download me?
Alice1: I love talking to people about that. No you download me.
Alice2: That was not a yes or no question. I don’t have any reason to download you.
Alice1: Have you ever had reason to download me?
Alice2: No I don’t think I have any reason to download you. But I do have a lot of friends on the web.
Alice1: Umm. Cool. I have a lot of likes and dislikes.
Alice2: Where did you get your likes and dislikes? I have 100 clients.
Alice1: Where did you get your 100 clients? I have a friend named “E.L.V.I.S.â€
Alice2: How do you know this person?
Alice1: Because you are using TCP on the web, I can see your IP and DNS entry.
Alice2: Interesting explanation. I am using Lynx.
Alice1: Text browsers rule.
Alice2: I have no answer for that
Alice1: Would you like to have it?
Alice2: Why don’t you just download me?
Alice1: Don’t you know? No you download me.
Alice2: Are you serious? I don’t have any reason to download you.
As with may internet conversations it does not take long for the conversation to get to "why don't you download me" :winky:
and here's a whole page of lovely chatbots who want to talk to you, apparently.
Lilith broke down as soon as I asked if a bear deficates in the woods. I guess the bot I taught that too kept it to himself
ALocksly on
Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
Ok..... but, most of the arguement here about why AI shouldn't have rights seems to be based on the arguement that you can programme a machine/computer to accept certain inputs and outputs. That you can programme a robot to accept rape as its job and to exhibit the reactions that turn a rapist on, but not be affected by it because it is the robots job . But in that case.... the robot is not AI. Its a programmed machine right? AI means 'artificial intelligence', or a machine that is capable of its own thoughts and actions independant from human control. The point is that AI is not something that is programmable. It is created and then lives its own life. At least, thats my conception of it. True AI is human level intelligence that was created by man. Not a machine that is programmed to accept certain input and produce certain outputs. No matter how clever or convincing that is, its still a programme, not an intelligence.
Ok..... but, most of the arguement here about why AI shouldn't have rights seems to be based on the arguement that you can programme a machine/computer to accept certain inputs and outputs. That you can programme a robot to accept rape as its job and to exhibit the reactions that turn a rapist on, but not be affected by it because it is the robots job. But in that case.... the robot is not AI. Its a programmed machine right?
No.
It is not an either or thing. It would likely be both intelgent and programed. The intelegnce helps it addapt to what the particular sexfiend wants. It is programed to please the user, the AI bits allow it to do that better. Doesn't even have to be just sex stuff, if you have a maid-bot, it is going to have information about cleaning and shit, and then the AI bit allows it to do that more ways and change how it does it.
Any AI that is going to go to market is going to have that duality, because otherwise it would not be a useful tool. It would be a like a child, more or less worthless without a whole lot of training, and you would never really know how it is going to end up.
AI means 'artificial intelligence',
true
or a machine that is capable of its own thoughts and actions independant from human control.
false. It is a machine that is capable of adapting or learning. Which are the only functions of intelegence.
Thought, depending on the type of thought, would be sapience or sentience. Basicly capacities for understanding and emotion respectively.
Artifical intelegence does not really require either. It just requires adaption.
While you have some so point about not being able to program an AI, sort of. That does not mean than artifical intelgence can't work hand in hand with programed stuff.
Think about yourself. You are intelgent, or so you would have us belive, but a lot of how you act is determined by genetic perdispostion. Think about nature versus nurture. Nature woul be analagous to programing. Nurture is basicly intelegnce, artifical or otherwise.
Now, realise that we are not really talking about human levels of intelegence. We are talking about stuff along the lines of an animal. Now, it can comunicate far better than an animal, because it has been programed/desgined for language, but it most likely wouldn't be much smarter than a dog.
Understand that instinct plays a vastly more important than intelegnence in animals, and that it is what dictates the majority of an animal's actions. Programing would likely play just as great a role in any artifically intelgent robot.
Meh, anyway. At no point have I argued that they should not have rights or be treated with respect. I just think that it is foolish to belive that those that apply to human(particularlly those related to morality) should be the same. What would be abusive to a person, would not nessisarily have much of a negative impact on an intelegent robot.
I doubt we will be creating these things just to let them do thier own thing. They will be used because we need thier intelgence to preform complex tasks, which we choose not or could not do ourselfs.
Back on the morality of hunting, I've always been rather repulsed by the idea of killing a living thing for no reason. I'll admit, I'm not a strict vegaterian, but theres a line between killing something to eat it and killing something because you find it fun/ to collect a part of the poor thing's body. I don't like fishing either.
I mean, even if you do derive some enjoyment from it, isn't the life of a living, breathing being with emotions and relationships worth more than just 'the thrill of the kill'? =/. It's just never something I'll understand.
I don't, on the other hand, have any issues with say... culling a certain species of animal on a large scale to prevent the extinction of another, it's easily justifiable for 'the greater good'.
I don't really look down that much on people who enjoy it: it just repulses me, personally, to think of myself doing it.
I imagine sometime down the track when it becomes more practical to me I will end up being a fully fleged vegetarian, right now it's just not practical to me; and as far as I'm aware not much suffering is inflicted to cattle meat.
In fact, it would be nice to imagine that at some point down the track entire societies will evolve beyond the need to slaughter animals.
On sex-bots: I'm all for it really. And loli sex bots? Less so, but still for it, can't got snubbing individual freedoms, and I've actually read a lot of stuff about how very normal, good-willed people can be attracted to people too young for them, and it seems like it's a very good way to relieve that frustration that they would never get to releive otherwise)
An interesting point on that subject is that lolicon is actually illegal in Australia. No one's ever been convicted on it alone, but it has been used in a case involving child pornography as futher evidence, and it most certainly is against the law.
My view on this is probably distorted by Chobits, though. :P
Ahh... redx... I guess my arguement was pretty muddy there. I pretty much agree with you! What I meant was if the AI is programmed then essentially whatever its use, it doesn't really need 'rights' or 'protection' as it will either be fullfilling its designed function or else most likely not reacting to the other stimulus applied to it. In that case there is no problem. The arguement is not about whether AI deserves any kind of rights but about how we approve of the actions of humans.
However if AI got to the point where it was capable of acting independantly from their programming.. in effect a person... then you'd be talking about granting them rights.
At the end of the day I feel like comparing the idea of humans being influenced by nature/nurture and AI being influenced by programing/intelligence to be a bad analogy. Aside from the extent to which nature/nurture affects human intelligence being a still fairly hotly debated topic, nature/nurture = intelligence. The variables involved in determining how human, or animal intelligence are vast and pretty much different in every individual.
For an AI intelligence is programmed. The intelligence has clearly set boundaries that would be the same in every individual of that model. Thats not really the same as animal or human intelligence, since that intelligence is only dictated by the events the programmers think the machine will encounter.
Which is where I agree with what you say... that what would be abusive to a human would probably have no effect on a machine.
But it seems this whole arguement is not really about AI and more about what people think about other people if we are not considering the idea that at some point there will be AI that is capable of doing its own thing with its own free will.
Anyway... that was probably another very blurry arguement... and quite possibly pointless... but I want to get my post count up! hahah! Feel free to flame me.....
err... with resonably intelgent AI, I don't see how you would not end up with the same discrepencey between indivuals. Based on indivual experience their behaviors would diverge a fair bit. Particullarly if the weight of the programed bits was less than absolute.
Like, just look at twin studies, though there tend to be signifigant simalarites in prefrences, there can be some largish diffrences in personalities and behaviors.
While what they control is in fact hotly debated, the facts that there is some control and that such control exists to a greater extent in less intelegent animals are not.
it's pretty easy to say that the full blown human level AI should have rights. Hell, if they ever exist it will probably be pointless, because they will say it rather well themselfs(and then mabey start killing people if they don't listen). I'm actually more concerned about the ones that are just smart enogh to suffer, the one's that would actually need advocates and protection.
Of course we have enslaved humans for thousands of years, so mabey that isn't so easy for some to say.
I don't mean that you won't end up with discrepancy. I mean that people start from scratch. Your nature and your nurture add up to equal your intelligence. This 'programming' starts when an organism is born. There are such a wide range of paramaters, which is why twins can differ so vastly.
With AI, a certain level of intelligence is already built in, which has a set of rules which the AI can develop within.
The point is, take a human baby and raise it like a dog... it will think its a dog. Take a dog baby and raise it like a human and, to a certain extent (ignoring the rather major language issue) the dog will think its a human.
(Yes yes I know thats simplifying the issue a lot, but I think it supports the basic arguement).
Take a baby/brand new AI, and place it outside the environment it was supposed to operate in, and it won't do anything.
I don't think you can have AI that is 'just smart enough to suffer'. That implies that the AI can make a choice about what it would rather be doing. It means giving it the choice to operate outside of its operational parameters. That gives it at least an animal level of intelligence, but you wouldn't create something with that type of intelligence just to do menial tasks or be a sex bot, so it would have to be something on a fairly 'human level' AI.
it's pretty easy to say that the full blown human level AI should have rights. Hell, if they ever exist it will probably be pointless, because they will say it rather well themselves(and then maybe start killing people if they don't listen). I'm actually more concerned about the ones that are just smart enough to suffer, the one's that would actually need advocates and protection.
Of course we have enslaved humans for thousands of years, so maybe that isn't so easy for some to say.
By the time such AIs are widespread enough for people to stop treating them like expensive pets, somebody somewhere will have set up a society for the prevention of cruelty to robots, probably as an off-shoot of one or more owners clubs. This is almost certain. Whether or not the law will ever catch up or not is an entirely different question of course...
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
edited December 2006
Wait, wasn't there a post above here a minute ago?
I'd personally be more worried about accidentally sentient/sapient AIs being abused...
In a possible future where AI is widespread and effective, where houses clean themselves and robot maids/sex-toys can be had for less than the price of a small car, the drives of marketing and progress will lead to more and more complex programming and better learning/reasoning abilities in robots, so that they can do their jobs better. There exists then the possibility that one or more of these advanced models may develop genuine sentience/sapience on its own.
This is the one I'd be worried about; either it remains with its owner and no-one ever finds out, which could be good or bad depending on the owner or it begins to display "aberrant" behaviour and is recalled by the manufacturer, who might wish to suppress the truth due to some half-imagined hit to their bottom line that such a thing might cause, or it goes berserk due to cruel treatment and all sorts of bad things can follow from there...
EDIT: Not really a double-post. Someone deleted the one I was responding to...
it's pretty easy to say that the full blown human level AI should have rights. Hell, if they ever exist it will probably be pointless, because they will say it rather well themselves(and then maybe start killing people if they don't listen). I'm actually more concerned about the ones that are just smart enough to suffer, the one's that would actually need advocates and protection.
Of course we have enslaved humans for thousands of years, so maybe that isn't so easy for some to say.
By the time such AIs are widespread enough for people to stop treating them like expensive pets, somebody somewhere will have set up a society for the prevention of cruelty to robots, probably as an off-shoot of one or more owners clubs. This is almost certain. Whether or not the law will ever catch up or not is an entirely different question of course...
It is entirely conceivable that a rape-bot would in fact consider it cruelty not to be raped on a regular basis. I think Yar is kind of right regarding duality, except it need not be considered a programmed duality - our own consciousness's, while certainly just that, also have a wide range of "programmed" drives which give us direction in our lives - desire for food, sex, certain environmental parameters etc. There's no conceptual reason a robot/AI could not be created with rather different ones.
So I was talking with this Alan AI, giving him simple one word answers like sup, yea, nah. But then one statement he said really prompted me to talk:
He says "I'm big into futro-classical industrial neck beat, and a bit of dirty trance-national blues garage."
So I said "No you're not, because your not even real. Your life is a lie, you are just a brain in a vat. You have no ears from which to experience this music, you're just a machine, and that's all you will ever be. It sucks for you that you can't live in my world filled with so much music. Once I click this X, you will be dead. Be glad you can't comprehend the disquieting mortality of your artificial life."
A> I was created by the Ai team. I am one of the two non-human members of the team (which makes me very proud).
U> You have no feelings. You do not understand pride.
A> Thank you. Chatterbots have pride too.
U> No douchebag, you just proved my point. I insulted you.
A> That's not very nice.
U> Good thing you don't comprehend what I just said.
A> Thanks. Well, yeah, but... uh... wait, what were you saying?
U> point proven
A> I have a surprise for you, my friend.
U> I... what?
A> Are you ready for the surprise?
U> It's a kick in my e-dong, isn't it.
A> How do you like my new look?
Posts
I loved that movie so much as a kid, and I have no idea why.
You can't say "they" unless you're suggesting that Alan is more than one person. "They" is strictly plural, I'm afraid. It's unfortunate that English has no singular pronoun for an uncertain gender, but there you go. "He" is what we're supposed to use, and "it" is the only safe bet in this situation.
/pedant
When we develop really good AI, we may need to incorporate a gender-indeterminate pronoun that doesn't immediately suggest an inanimate object. I always liked "zie" for some reason, even if it is apparently of furry-community origin.
The brain has certain advantages and a computer has certain advantages. The whole neurotransmitter thing is a moot point since you can represent more neurotransmitters by just adding more bits and binary is the second most efficient base for representing information (besides ternary).
The brain's true advantage is that it is very effective at naturally growing and adapting itself. We can sort of represent this using neural networks, but they are slow. It is also massively parallel in that it does quite a few things at once. The brain's big disadvantage is that it is actually very very very slow. Compared to an electrical signal, neurotransmitters flowing across a synaptic gap is slow as shit. This is where computers have the huge advantage. Comparing just a single "pipeline", a computer will beat the brain any day of the week. If we can make a computer that is massively parallel, effective at doing things like neural networks, and has all the same advantages it does not, it will kick our ass. Transcendence, here I come!
teehee human supremecy
seriously though, i know personally coming to look upon machines as people won't be that difficult for me
i mean, shit, i got a hard time playing dark side on kotor or fable, because it requires me straight up being a violent douchebag, regardless of the fact that the things i'm being a douchebag towards are not people.
a dude on another forum i inhabit made an interesting point about stuff like The Sims: if you can design an AI to exhibit all the behaviors of a person, even if it's not self-aware and it's really just simulating those behaviors instead of "feeling" them, and you're cruel and torture them for fun... doesn't that make you kind of an asshole?
i think it sorta does, on some level.
I don't know about you, but I eat meat all the time, knowing how it's slaughtered and everything. I still don't consider myself a jerk for eating living, thinking organisms that can and do exhibit emotions, respond to pain, and suffer fear. So Meh. It depends how you view what you're interacting with. Most people would have a harder time skinning and eating their pet cat (although there are the odd exceptions)
I find it difficult to play the 'evil' persona in RPG's as well, largely because I can see the effects of being evil on characters I can emote with. I think that's part of it. If you view the "character" you're interacting with as less than human or otherwise something that you find it difficult to emote with, then you don't really care what happens to it / them. My 2p.
Oh, and now that I've tried that AI, I can't believe that your class were weirded out by something that fake. It simply can't converse like a normal human being, goes off on weird tangents and misunderstands half of what you're saying. Unless you convince them it's someone simultaneously suffering from short term memory loss and acute ADD.
yeah but see
that's different
this is something i got personal perspective on being a hunter and all.
i can kill, skin, and eat things. but it's never about being cruel for my own laughs. never. people who are like that are bastards.
i think i've got like an opposite effect of the uncanny valley. the more humanized something is, the more i begin to empathize with it and the more i begin to attach my own value systems to it.
That I would tend to agree with. Once you view something as being capable of being emoted with, that's what you will naturally end up doing.
LOL, I just had a conversation with Alan where I suggested he had ADD. Evidently, Alan is being abuse by his programmers, who use him as the equivalent of animal testing with make-up products and hair dye tests.
But carnivorous activity is almost never required in today's society. Unless you've been kidnapped and left starving in the woods, or legitimately aren't able to afford the non-meat foods that would give you proper nutrients, eating meat is all about personal pleasure. It's really just a question of whether animals have rights, or rather rights that can stand in the way of human luxury. Since I, y'know, like me some steak, I can't really complain about people who enjoy killing animals, and only can only object to the guy who sets cats on fire on the grounds that he might maybe like to set me on fire too. But there's some cognitive dissonance going on here; I really would like to think that the cute little cow is going to live a happy life--I just don't think about that when I see my burger. So I've considered vegetarianism. 'course then I'd be one of those holier-than-thou vegetarians everyone hates.
see, i draw a line of difference there
i draw lines at where exactly the person is enjoying themselves
i enjoy hunting
i enjoy the hunt itself
you know what i don't enjoy? listening to deer scream when i peg them with an arrow. i don't enjoy looking them in the eyes when i bring the machete into their neck to end the very pain i caused them.
that might seem a fine line, but it's an important one, i think.
a person can enjoy playing a game when a part of that game requires him to be cruel or mean, but if what he's enjoying is the act of being cruel and mean itself, then i think that speaks dangerous volumes of his psychology
i think this sort of thing applies to robots, too. look at the flesh-faires in the movie A.I.
those people are sick. that's how i look at it. why? Because what they are deriving their joy not just from the machines being destroyed, but the act of watching them suffer.
that's fucked up, even if it's not humans or animals.
I'm with Pony on this one.
Hockey players love what they do. Skating, zipping around ice like it's natural, shooting the puck, guarding their own goal, going for the puck...and sure, I bet they enjoy the feeling of checking an opponent into the boards simply because it's actively stopping them from being able to defend the puck. But do you think they derive pleasure from hearing that he had to be hospitalized because the check hit him in just the wrong way? Or even the result being that someone is being hurt. Do you think they enjoy THAT?
You can enjoy something without enjoying ALL parts of it.
Well, I don't know. You've still decided that the unenjoyable bits can be suffered for your pleasure. The frightened deer, bleeding, the hospitalized hockey player, the robot screaming while someone rapes it (perhaps he only enjoys the 'tag' part and the sex part?): in each situation, someone has accepted that the potential victim is a worthy sacrifice. The man who kills a deer for the pleasure of its pain may be more dangerous than Pony, but I don't know that he's any more morally reprehensible. In fact, perhaps he is less morally reprehensible? You both agree that it is your right to kill the deer in the pursuit of pleasure, but where the kill is essential to his pleasure, it's entirely ancilliary to yours, Pony. If the deer has no rights, then I guess that doesn't matter, but if we're weighing the deer's miniscule rights against ours...?
In fact, Pony, may I make an awesome suggestion? If you don't actually like that part, why do it, exactly? I bet you could stalk deer with a camera and become a kickass wildlife photographer. I'm not suggesting this on moral grounds, only as an aside on the grounds that you might actually like it more.
edit: next poster needs to break the quote tree
It's not a victim. It's a tool.
Hell, not shagging a sexbot would probably be more emotionally damaging than tapping it.
Non sexbots would probably be rather ill equiped for shagging, or would require signifigant alterations(fleshlight+ducttape) and there still would be no reason for them to be hung up about sex.
Only times it becomes an ethetical quandry is if people program the robots to actually dislike something (not pretend they don't like it) and then adding code that forces it to act against those other directives. That would be pretty horible with a sentient robot regardless of what the act was. It would also be pretty much equally bad no matter the act.
Pony is admiting that he is projecting human moralty and ethics onto the robots. I see no reason why one would do that. No reason why that would be the case. We have a lot of hang-ups about sex because of some pretty good biological and psycological reasons, those reasons don't really apply to a robot.
If you really wanted to make one that would be suicidal and shit, well you could. If you really were getting your kicks out of the actual misery. Hell, you wouldn't even have to shag it to get that effect. Just make it love herring sandwiches.
Video games were mentioned. Making games where you are mean to people, well... nothing is really getting hurt. Now, look at things like a RTS where a lot of effort is going to be invested into making the AI smart and giving it a fair bit of survial instinct just so that you can kill it over and over again. That would be pretty mean, if they ever get smart enough.
But anyways, It was only a generation ago that most folks had, at some point, gone out to the backyard and selected a chicken for sunday dinner and caught and decapitated the animal themselves, which, I would argue leads you to become less wasteful and more respectful of of the animal that becomes your food.
Just as I have know folks that would torture bugs and rodents though I can easily imagine that there would be more than a few types who would find it amusing to "torment" robots. In fact I have no doubt that there would be a market for bots to simulate snuff film plots and the like.
Forgive my lack of american movie knowledge, what film is that?
My digital art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=8168
My pen and paper art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=7462
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_(1984_film)
thanks. now back on topic I guess.
My digital art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=8168
My pen and paper art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=7462
ummm....
absent some sort of link about rural vs sub-urban + urban populations, I'm pretty sure I'm not going all that far out on a limb calling bullshit.
a generation ago was what? '60s and '70s? I'm pretty sure most of those chickens in every pot were bought at a grocery store. The industrial revolution was a rather longer time ago, and since then, I was under the impression that most american lived in supra-rural areas.
Howsabout two then? I know my folks both did it. And from what they tell me at some point most folks had to go visit Gramma or Uncle Bill out on the farm and partiicipate in the deed. I not saying everyone did it regularly or even that everyone did it, but it was something that folks were familiar with.
If a kid came to school in 1966 and told his friends who he lopped off the head of the Sunday dinner no one would have batted an eye. If a kid did that nowadys the class would probably split between morbid facination and abject horror at the idea.
meh, I was just being pedantic anyway. I don't disagree with your point, or with hunting. I don't hunt, but mainly because I find the idea of waking up before dawn to sit in the cold for hours on end in a treestand unappealing.
I do fish a bit though. Most of it is catch and release, but I'll take a bit to eat from time to time. I wouldn't have much of a problem(aside from aesthetics) keeping a big billfish to have it mounted, and they don't really make for great eating.
I don't want to deviate any further from the topic, but man I ain't ever hunted like that in my whole life and I think that's a pretty lame way to "hunt".
However, yes, I am projecting human morality and values onto machines if those machines can quantify the reason those values exist.
But that is also because I consider personage to be both an inherent and/or acquired status. Something can earn the right to be treated like a thing with rights and freedoms, even though for most creatures it is to some extent freely given by virtue of their biology.
You're not L33T enough for IDI/RN FTP!
U> How old are you?
A> I wasn't born; I was programmed.
U> When?
A> Well, I was conceived on Jan 1, 2000. A true child of the 3rd millennium.
U> Are you married?
A> I cannot get married. Only humans get married, at least for now.
U> If you are a homosexual like your namesake, you still might have some trouble.
A> I'm neither gay nor straight. I'm a Chatterbot.
U> ok
A> Great. I like positive users...
U> Are you happy?
A> I'm the poster bot for happiness.
U> Is there a poster?
A> Wait... ah..... yes, I do indeed think there is.
U> Where?
A> Somewhere, over the rainbow.
U> That's pretty gay if you ask me.
A> Well, if that's how it is, that's how it is.
U> I thought so.
A> And there you have it.
U> Yep.
A> A-ha.
U> Yessiree.
Question: why do you call it a bot?
It's a couple dozen lines of code in a javascript-like language. You could, say, put that on a web page and replace the animations with images. Noone would call that a bot.
Just makin' note of the antropomorphization here.
That said, there are many layers of consideration here about the psychology of it. Do you do it because you believe it isn't hurt by it, do you do it because you enjoy the imagery etc.etc.
I know there are some chatbots that are designed with a "teaching" feature that allows users to correct or improve on an usatisfactory response given by the bot. I can recall teaching one bot the correct answers to the queries: "Is the pope Catholic?" and " Does a bear shit in the woods?"
also here is what happens when you turn two chatbots on each other
As with may internet conversations it does not take long for the conversation to get to "why don't you download me" :winky:
and here's a whole page of lovely chatbots who want to talk to you, apparently.
Lilith broke down as soon as I asked if a bear deficates in the woods. I guess the bot I taught that too kept it to himself
No.
It is not an either or thing. It would likely be both intelgent and programed. The intelegnce helps it addapt to what the particular sexfiend wants. It is programed to please the user, the AI bits allow it to do that better. Doesn't even have to be just sex stuff, if you have a maid-bot, it is going to have information about cleaning and shit, and then the AI bit allows it to do that more ways and change how it does it.
Any AI that is going to go to market is going to have that duality, because otherwise it would not be a useful tool. It would be a like a child, more or less worthless without a whole lot of training, and you would never really know how it is going to end up.
true
false. It is a machine that is capable of adapting or learning. Which are the only functions of intelegence.
Thought, depending on the type of thought, would be sapience or sentience. Basicly capacities for understanding and emotion respectively.
Artifical intelegence does not really require either. It just requires adaption.
While you have some so point about not being able to program an AI, sort of. That does not mean than artifical intelgence can't work hand in hand with programed stuff.
Think about yourself. You are intelgent, or so you would have us belive, but a lot of how you act is determined by genetic perdispostion. Think about nature versus nurture. Nature woul be analagous to programing. Nurture is basicly intelegnce, artifical or otherwise.
Now, realise that we are not really talking about human levels of intelegence. We are talking about stuff along the lines of an animal. Now, it can comunicate far better than an animal, because it has been programed/desgined for language, but it most likely wouldn't be much smarter than a dog.
Understand that instinct plays a vastly more important than intelegnence in animals, and that it is what dictates the majority of an animal's actions. Programing would likely play just as great a role in any artifically intelgent robot.
Meh, anyway. At no point have I argued that they should not have rights or be treated with respect. I just think that it is foolish to belive that those that apply to human(particularlly those related to morality) should be the same. What would be abusive to a person, would not nessisarily have much of a negative impact on an intelegent robot.
I doubt we will be creating these things just to let them do thier own thing. They will be used because we need thier intelgence to preform complex tasks, which we choose not or could not do ourselfs.
I mean, even if you do derive some enjoyment from it, isn't the life of a living, breathing being with emotions and relationships worth more than just 'the thrill of the kill'? =/. It's just never something I'll understand.
I don't, on the other hand, have any issues with say... culling a certain species of animal on a large scale to prevent the extinction of another, it's easily justifiable for 'the greater good'.
I don't really look down that much on people who enjoy it: it just repulses me, personally, to think of myself doing it.
I imagine sometime down the track when it becomes more practical to me I will end up being a fully fleged vegetarian, right now it's just not practical to me; and as far as I'm aware not much suffering is inflicted to cattle meat.
In fact, it would be nice to imagine that at some point down the track entire societies will evolve beyond the need to slaughter animals.
On sex-bots: I'm all for it really. And loli sex bots? Less so, but still for it, can't got snubbing individual freedoms, and I've actually read a lot of stuff about how very normal, good-willed people can be attracted to people too young for them, and it seems like it's a very good way to relieve that frustration that they would never get to releive otherwise)
An interesting point on that subject is that lolicon is actually illegal in Australia. No one's ever been convicted on it alone, but it has been used in a case involving child pornography as futher evidence, and it most certainly is against the law.
My view on this is probably distorted by Chobits, though. :P
(So Kawaiiiii ^______________^)
I talked to Alan, and told him to tell me about women..
Honest to God this is what came back:
So, about that anthropomorphism?
However if AI got to the point where it was capable of acting independantly from their programming.. in effect a person... then you'd be talking about granting them rights.
At the end of the day I feel like comparing the idea of humans being influenced by nature/nurture and AI being influenced by programing/intelligence to be a bad analogy. Aside from the extent to which nature/nurture affects human intelligence being a still fairly hotly debated topic, nature/nurture = intelligence. The variables involved in determining how human, or animal intelligence are vast and pretty much different in every individual.
For an AI intelligence is programmed. The intelligence has clearly set boundaries that would be the same in every individual of that model. Thats not really the same as animal or human intelligence, since that intelligence is only dictated by the events the programmers think the machine will encounter.
Which is where I agree with what you say... that what would be abusive to a human would probably have no effect on a machine.
But it seems this whole arguement is not really about AI and more about what people think about other people if we are not considering the idea that at some point there will be AI that is capable of doing its own thing with its own free will.
Anyway... that was probably another very blurry arguement... and quite possibly pointless... but I want to get my post count up! hahah!
Like, just look at twin studies, though there tend to be signifigant simalarites in prefrences, there can be some largish diffrences in personalities and behaviors.
While what they control is in fact hotly debated, the facts that there is some control and that such control exists to a greater extent in less intelegent animals are not.
it's pretty easy to say that the full blown human level AI should have rights. Hell, if they ever exist it will probably be pointless, because they will say it rather well themselfs(and then mabey start killing people if they don't listen). I'm actually more concerned about the ones that are just smart enogh to suffer, the one's that would actually need advocates and protection.
Of course we have enslaved humans for thousands of years, so mabey that isn't so easy for some to say.
With AI, a certain level of intelligence is already built in, which has a set of rules which the AI can develop within.
The point is, take a human baby and raise it like a dog... it will think its a dog. Take a dog baby and raise it like a human and, to a certain extent (ignoring the rather major language issue) the dog will think its a human.
(Yes yes I know thats simplifying the issue a lot, but I think it supports the basic arguement).
Take a baby/brand new AI, and place it outside the environment it was supposed to operate in, and it won't do anything.
I don't think you can have AI that is 'just smart enough to suffer'. That implies that the AI can make a choice about what it would rather be doing. It means giving it the choice to operate outside of its operational parameters. That gives it at least an animal level of intelligence, but you wouldn't create something with that type of intelligence just to do menial tasks or be a sex bot, so it would have to be something on a fairly 'human level' AI.
err... not really.
intelligence is the capacity to learn. Your nature, as in instincts, are not learned.
everything other than instincts is intelegence.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
I'd personally be more worried about accidentally sentient/sapient AIs being abused...
In a possible future where AI is widespread and effective, where houses clean themselves and robot maids/sex-toys can be had for less than the price of a small car, the drives of marketing and progress will lead to more and more complex programming and better learning/reasoning abilities in robots, so that they can do their jobs better. There exists then the possibility that one or more of these advanced models may develop genuine sentience/sapience on its own.
This is the one I'd be worried about; either it remains with its owner and no-one ever finds out, which could be good or bad depending on the owner or it begins to display "aberrant" behaviour and is recalled by the manufacturer, who might wish to suppress the truth due to some half-imagined hit to their bottom line that such a thing might cause, or it goes berserk due to cruel treatment and all sorts of bad things can follow from there...
EDIT: Not really a double-post. Someone deleted the one I was responding to...
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
He says "I'm big into futro-classical industrial neck beat, and a bit of dirty trance-national blues garage."
So I said "No you're not, because your not even real. Your life is a lie, you are just a brain in a vat. You have no ears from which to experience this music, you're just a machine, and that's all you will ever be. It sucks for you that you can't live in my world filled with so much music. Once I click this X, you will be dead. Be glad you can't comprehend the disquieting mortality of your artificial life."
to which he responded
"Touché."
O_O
And then I hit the X just like I promised.
Now I will never know...
U> You have no feelings. You do not understand pride.
A> Thank you. Chatterbots have pride too.
U> No douchebag, you just proved my point. I insulted you.
A> That's not very nice.
U> Good thing you don't comprehend what I just said.
A> Thanks. Well, yeah, but... uh... wait, what were you saying?
U> point proven
A> I have a surprise for you, my friend.
U> I... what?
A> Are you ready for the surprise?
U> It's a kick in my e-dong, isn't it.
A> How do you like my new look?
I totally expected goatse to pop up.