Equal Rights for... Robots

[Pard]

Mike

He is referring to a more real version of "I-Robot". The evil robot mind was in control of that company and in control of all those robots and ended up taking control of the enter country. He is saying could this happen at a smaller level and if so what would be the consequences if this action?

Let's think of this from an ethical point of view for a moment shall we? Does anyone truly need robots to do their bidding for them? In "I-Robot" it looked pretty nice but let's look at reality shall we? People would sit at home and have a robot do stuff for them. They would no longer truly be "living" in our current sense of the word. I already have an issue with robots taking jobs from hardworking individuals but with the stuff they promote as the "future" we could potentially see robots living our entire lives. Now that is a bit scary.

But that is a bit sci-fi for my taste. Let's look at right now...

Is it right for robots to fill the assembly lines that only two decades ago were filled with humans? Sure they are more efficient and they don't have unions and they don't need to get paid or take a break but is that really right? I get using robots in cases where it can spare the life of a human (UAVs and EOD-bots) but especially in the face of our current economic situation does a robot really sound like the right direction? It's not like humans can even make the robots since other robots do that.

And does this "new-age" assembly line have anything to do with our current unemployment rate?

 

[Sparkey]

Pard? pardon but your "take" on what I said when I replied to Mike sounds like you didn't follow my suggestion to Google "Autonomous Agents". Here is a link that I hope helps clarify my meaning more than your cultural reference to I-Robot and Issac Asimov's theory of robotics:

http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/journal/10458

 

[stovebolts]

The way people respond to opposition speaks about who they are and you responded with ad hominum attacks...

Pard,
I've had the same thing happen to me that she accused me of and it's not a fun place to be in. When our world view is challenged, we don't always read what is written before us the way it was intended.

I don't have any doubt that she viewed my post the way she did. It's about perception and I can't invalidate her feelings.

What I can do is say I'm sorry for hurting her feelings (because I am sorry for hurting her feelings) and try to clarify my position and hopefully, she will change her view on what I said and see it for the way it was intended. From there, it is her choice to either agree or not with what I said, or maybe we'll both learn a bit. I try to never close my eyes to what others may know.

That's how I would like to be treated anyway. And I ought to give her the same respect I'd like to receive from others when I misrepresent their words as well.

 

[childeye]

AI is a real possibility. Computers run many things and they make decisions based on binary code just like humans. But what a robot does not have and which cannot be programmed is Love.

 

[Pard]

AI is a real possibility. Computers run many things and they make decisions based on binary code just like humans. But what a robot does not have and which cannot be programmed is Love.

Unless you are a materialist/behaviorist in which case "love" is a programmed reaction to adverse situations.

 

[Sparkey]

Here is the abstract found for one of the articles mentioned in the Springer link:
"Animate Characters" by Hayes-Roth, Barbara; Doyle, Patrick

Abstract
The world of everyday interactions is filled with characters, real or fictitious, and human knowledge of how to make these interactions satisfying and productive relies upon an understanding of character. As agents become more intelligent and more ubiquitous, we may naturally ask how we can endow them with life and personality to make them easier and more gratifying to use. This paper offers a broad definition of animate character, and examines the technical and artistic issues involved both in the creation and the evaluation of such systems. We provide example interactions with several character types. The paper concludes with an annotated bibliographic survey of work done in this area.

Note the premise of the essay, "As agents become more intelligent and more ubiquitous, we may naturally ask how we can endow them with life and personality to make them easier and more gratifying to use."

Paragraph 3 from the introduction: "In this paper, we explore the possibility of creating a new class of intelligent agents that will bring the pleasure and enhanced functionality people derive from interacting with characters in the real world into the virtual worlds enabled by net technology. "Animate characters" will have virtual minds that capture their individual personalities, emotions, and relationships. They will make their own decisions about what to say and do in real time...."

Quote from "Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems", 1, pg. 195-230 (1998) Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands
Barbara Hayes-Roth, Stanford University and Estempo Systems, Inc
Patrick Doyle, Stanford University.

 

[Pebbles]

And from what I've gathered from reading you posts all over the forum you probably would write off those medical and scientific professionals as a bunch of "quakes" to stick with those "crazy Christians" but that isn't a very smart tactic. Writing off your intellectual opponents isn't a winning strategy.

So maybe you'd like to recant your last post because that is exactly what you did to Stovebolt who made some very valid points. In fact it's funny because directly after saying that he is misconstruing your words you go and reinforce what he supposedly misconstrued.

It was claimed that I had no moral axis. not only is that untrue I found it offensive.
It would be comparable to me saying christianity confers no morals only bloodthirsty attitudes. For whitch If I said with intent here you would be rightfully angry and I would with all likleyhood be banned.

It boils down to a very simple thing. Robots do not feel anything that isn't pre-programmed. They do not "learn". They are programmed. Even the "learning robots" are not truly learning and if you don't believe me go ask someone in the robotic/programming field (if you like I can point you in the direction of the head of Robotic Engineering at WPI).

Yes I know I'm not talking about robots today. The Self-aware robot paradox are mentioned only in hypothetical.

 

[stovebolts]

It was claimed that I had no moral axis. not only is that untrue I found it offensive.

So that's how you took that. Thank you for letting me know. Now I understand why you took my words the way you did.

Do you know what's ironic though Pebbles? I found your comment about us just being a piece of meat offensive, and it struck a cord with me as well. What you don't know is my mother is skitzo. She's had shock treatment twice and has been treated like a piece of meat from the psychiatrist for the past 40 years. She's been written off by many, including the doctors. Here, give her these and it will shut her up is the attitude I sense from them.

But I spent a lot of time with her in my 20's trying to figure her out so I could better understand her so she could maybe not be so frustrated that nobody could understand her. Simply, nobody enjoys being misunderstood, even a crazy woman such as my mother.

But please understand me Pebbles, it is not that I am saying that you don't have a moral axis, I am simply saying that our moral axis are different.

 

[Pard]

Chew on this thought...

Robot "rights" predisposes that we have some need for human-like robots. Reality is we do not. Our need for robots is because we need them to be efficient. If they need to be efficient than obviously the human for isn't going to be the shape of choice. Robots take the form we deem to be most efficient.

The most efficient car making robot is an arm on a wall-mounted rail. The most efficient EOD robot is a mini-tank with two three-jointed arms. The most efficient diving robot is a large-ish boombox with several task-specific appendages. The most efficient flying robot is an airplane without the cockpit.

You see these robots fill our needs. They don't look like us because we have no need for a robot that looks like us. Humans are designed to do many things mediocre. Robots are designed to do one thing very well. They are masters of a single finite task. They will never have a conscious because there is no need to even develop such a thing for a robot. They will not "create" their own conscious because the only people who believe robots should have rights do so because they do not even believe humans have a conscious!

And these task-specific robots are what will populate the world. The problem is people get this notion that robots will look like use in its general form. This is wrong because there is truly no need. Perhaps we will have a few robots (and we do already) but they are not needed they are hobbies and pet-projects. They are things that are created to show off the ability of a company. They are toys. Lower than even a pet mouse. Less useful than an xbox and more expensive than a yacht. Their place among society will always be as a relic to our own ingenuity.

Asimov was a fiction writer and not a prophet. His notions were grand but in reality they are pointless thought projects.

Even the most advanced AI will only do as much as it is told. It holds a list of per-programmed events and it has assigned actions for each one. It doesn't use "logic" to decide on "unique" outcomes it goes to its glorified Excel spreadsheet. People need to get their heads out of the sci-fi clouds and back to reality.

I think Anonymous said it best. "A living organism in a controlled environment, under controlled conditions, will do as it damn well pleases."

A robot will do as it was told to do. It may "explore" and it may "play" but it does so because it's 0's and 1's are designed for it to do so. Put a baby in that situation and it will explore because that is part of its nature. Maybe someone did program the baby to explore but than you'd have to admit there is a Infinite of some sort and the only people who advocate for such silly notions as "robot rights" would never ever admit to the Infinite!

I never said you don't have some moral axis. I a) don't agree with the one you have and I b) have narrowed the relative location of your moral axis down to somewhere within the materialist/behaviorist/humanist zone (each of those being a specific area in a three dimensional area). I'm quite sure you have a moral compass as you clearly are showing emotion... Excuse me. I meant "pre-programmed reactions to a hostile environment" :D

 

[Mike]

In thinking about the possibilities of technology, consider how these two technologies could combine into one bizarre potential. I tried to google these stories but came up with nothing. They are unrelated for now...

Companies are experimenting with AI technology that will learn from a person's posts on Facebook. When they are dead and gone, their responses on Facebook will continue with in the same demeanor, with likely responses from the person when s/he lived.

CNN has done hologram interviews where the person being interview was in another state. They're holographic image was projected in 3D in the CNN studio.

I was thinking... a holographic image of a person saying what would have been expected of them while they were still alive. :shocked! To me, this makes AI robot technology seem like child's-play.

 

[Classik]

Yet scripture says,

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

We either see scripture as truth, or we don't. Regardless, we all have faith, but the question remains to whom or what that faith is placed.

sure!

 

[Classik]

Wow! This thread has been blessed with fertility...perhaps it needs family planning:D
---
Thanks to Mike

 

[Sparkey]

I tried to google these stories but came up with nothing. They are unrelated for now...

At the college library today I searched "Robots" -OR- "Artificial Inteligence" -AND- "Human Rights". Many hits but two jumped out - both from TIME magazine.

"Will Robots Rise Up and Demand Their Rights?" Time, 06/19/2000 Vol 155 Issue 25 p86 1/2p, 1Color Photo

"Meet Dr. Robot" Time 12/13/2010

They both dealt with the issue of "the humane and ethical treatment of machines"

 

[Mike]

They both dealt with the issue of "the humane and ethical treatment of machines"

:toofunny

 

[jasoncran]

what would commander spock say? logic is perfection and perfection is devoid of emotions.

what would commander data say? i wish i had emotions.