From: Alex Ramonsky (alex@ramonsky.com)
Date: Wed Mar 06 2002 - 18:20:51 MST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon McClenahan" <SMcClenahan@ATTBI.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 22:44
Subject: Re: Revolting AI (was economics of star trek)
> From: "Dickey, Michael F" <michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com>
>
> > From: Simon McClenahan [mailto:SMcClenahan@ATTBI.com]
> > If you attatch rights to intelligent machines, would you do the same for
> > intelligent non-human animals?
>
> Absolutely. Non-human animals of course have intelligence.
...do these right include the right to lead a natural life and not be a
'pet'?
>
> Similarly for pet ownership, I respect Fido and he respects me, and we
both
> get happiness out of the relationship. But if he becomes rabid, or mauls a
> small child because it is in his nature to do so, I would pursue
corrective
> healing or termination for the sake of the mutual relationship and his
right
> to be in that positive and constructive relationship, and not simply
because
> I am more intelligent and powerful than him.
>
...but would you then go out and buy another dog? And heal it or terminate
it if it's 'nature' did not fit in with your society? (I am playing the
devil's advocate here; I don't actually have any strong personal feelings
about this, so hope I don't sound offensive).
> I guess one could
> consider the concept of "slavery" as "tool-ifying a sentient (intelligent)
> being."
>
...what an absolutely brilliant definition. (Can I steal it?) It covers what
humans do to humans, what humans do to animals (use them as emotional
feedback deficit substitutes) and what humans may attempt to do to AI.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:48 MST