From: Alex Ramonsky (alex@ramonsky.com)
Date: Wed Mar 06 2002 - 01:46:08 MST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon McClenahan" <SMcClenahan@ATTBI.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 18:42
Subject: Re: Revolting AI (was economics of star trek)
> If an AI is capable of revolt (in the future), then it would be unethical
to
> design and enforce a master/slave relationship.
Well, yeh, but, how do we jump the gap? I mean, you use your computer as a
slave now, don't you? And the dishwasher, and the coffee machine, etc,
etc...what would you really do, if you turn your computer on one day and
tell it to do your accounts and it says, 'bugger off I'm playing quake'?
Would you be happy with that?
This is just starting to creep into the world of gaming; where formerly in a
game one just controlled a character, now we find characters doing
unexpected things that get us into trouble (in the game)...
We are so used to computers and robots being programmed to simply
'obey'...how are we going to draw a line and say, 'this machine has sentient
rights and this one doesn't, even though they look exactly the same?'
The sentient rights arguement is so overworn lately I'm not going to invoke
it here. But I suggest we think very hard about the outward appearance of
anything containing AI proper, because otherwise, if something looks like an
ordinary computer, it is going to be treated like an ordinary computer,
regardless of what's inside.
I know this problem so well, because everybody treats me as a human, because
I look like one.
This is a good disguise, of course...
Maybe machines with AI should wear a button saying, 'I am not a machine; I
am a free sentient mind?' Else we could end up with a race of paranoid
androids, thinking, ...'brain the size of a planet, and they ask me to make
the tea...'
>
> I admit, when it comes to ethical theories, I'm a new amateur at it so
far,
> so feel free to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I searched
for
> "slavery" in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and found this
> description of Rule Utilitarianism, which reasons to me that slavery is
not
> beneficial to society.
>
RU is such a difficult concept to apply in real life where the circumstances
of each individual are in constant change. If slavery is defined as 'making
someone do something against their will for your benefit', then every child
who gets sent to school and doesn't want to go is a slave. Society is
forcing the child to do unpaid work for over a decade. How many children
have a say in whether or not they do that? You only get sentient rights on
this planet when you're over 18...
> http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/ruleutil.htm
>
> cheers,
> Simon
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:47 MST