"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g6pd04$p7s$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "cr88192" <cr88192@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:6147a$489016ba$7937c448$4513@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> but, you actually have to treat humans like humans.
>> >
>> > AH!
>> >
>> >> androids could be packed into boxes or closets, and only run when
and
>> > where
>> >> they are needed (they could be treated far worse than any humans
> without
>> >> raising any sympathy).
>> >
>> > Do we have to treat genetically modified squirrels, ferrets, rabbits,
>> > or
>> > alligators, with human brain capacity and human pro****tions as human?
> Do
>> > we
>> > have to treat pigs with human hearts, ears, kidneys (etc. for medical
>> > transplants), with human brain capacity as human? Or, just as
food...
> If
>> > we can't treat these genetically created "workers" as food because of
>> > their
>> > new brain capacity, then it's likely the world can't justify treating
>> > cows,
>> > deer, monkeys, horses, dogs, cats, as food either due to their
current
>> > brain
>> > capacity... If we can't treat the "workers" we "created" as food due
>> > to
>> > their brain capacity, then how can we justify treating an android we
>> > created
>> > that has anything more than a child's brain capacity as anything less
> than
>> > a
>> > full human? If it's as smart as us or our children, shouldn't it be
>> > treated
>> > like us or our children? I.e., isn't sympathy basically judged by
the
>> > brain
>> > capacity, adorability, and respectability, of the lifeform from our
>> > perspective?
>> >
>>
>> it is not needed, so long as they are not actually self-aware.
>
> How do you determine self-awareness? Once you've determined it, how do
> you
> eliminate it, without eliminating the abilities required for
intelligence?
>
'intelligence' is likely to be much easier to create than self-awareness.
self-awareness may occure within some AIs, but I doubt it will likely be a
common feature.
as for detecting it, once it happens it should be fairly obvious I would
think (presumably, the AI would start exhibiting "self-aware" behaviors,
and
their absence would likely imply the absence of the feature in question).
basically, a major indicator would be when such an AI started showing
evidence of human-like or animal-like self-preservation or otherwise
self-serving behaviors beyond those which can be accounted for in the
actual
design of the AI.
so, an intelligent AI could pass the turing test and carry on meaningful
conversation, but would have no will of its own, and would neither promote
its own well being nor avoid its own destruction. a self-aware AI, OTOH,
is
likely to exhibit these properties without them either being explicitly
programmed or necessary for its functioning.
this is likely to be the result of more "traditional" AI approaches (that
is, assuming these approaches don't start running into a "glass ceiling"
first).
also, as I see it, if there is one thing that would be rarer than
self-awareness, it would be "common sense"...
however, if the AI forms as an approximation of actual life, where
decisions
influence individual survival, ... then these properties are likely to
form
prior to those of intelligence (a survival-concerned AI being self-aware,
and having rudimentary "common sense", well before it is able to speak).
>> so, for example, they can have a human-like intelligence, but still act
> and
>> think like an ordinary machine, and then not raise sympathy (of course,
I
>> also ended up dealing with some of these kinds of issues in some
recently
>> written fiction as well...).
>
> Why are you so interested in a "being" that you could treat
non-humanely?
> e.g., like an advanced vacuum cleaner...
>
I suspect that this kind of thing is a kind of common human dream, to
always
have something or someone lower that can be denigrated, despised, and
exploited, so that people can be better and rise above those who are below
themselves.
for example, when there are near-human androids, then probably most people
will be able to give up, for example, their despise of blacks, jews, ...
in
the form of finding something new to despise...
but, this is likely to be a lesser issue though, since I don't think
everyone feels this kind of "need" though.
> So, if a lifeform is bruised, starved to death, or have broken bones, no
> one
> will raise sympathy? People currently raise sympathy over numerous
small
> and large animals today... in many countries, e.g., animal cruelty laws,
> no
> hunting laws. For an android, it might be a bit different, but the
> android
> is someone's property. Anyone other than the owner causing damage to an
> android would commit a crime. If the owner causes damage, it costs
> him/her
> money to fix. Anyone other than the owner giving orders to the android
> would commit a crime too. It's not community property.
>
not all things need to result in physical damage.
we nearly endlessly treat physical objects "inhumanely" and don't even
consider it.
an android will just be something on the border, somewhere between life
and
an inanimate object.
as for animal cruelty laws:
tell that to all the people who like raising animals to fight to the
death,
while placing bets on which, if either, will come out alive (them often
using steroids to both make them more agressive and also more powerful).
this is a common practice here, most commonly with chickens (sometimes
other
animals may be used, such as dogs, ...), it is the same issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_fighting
>> >> basically, [androids] could be a potentially cheaper alternative to
>> >> humans
>> > for
>> >> many forms of unskilled labor...
>> >
>> > With all the poverty in the world, is there really a need for cheaper
>> > labor?
>> > With a potential worldwide population explosion on the horizon, is
>> > there
>> > really a need for cheaper labor? (The whole world could be eating
>> > krill...)
>> > Or, is the real need to relocate work and workers so that they can be
>> > together?
>> >
>>
>> I suspect probably most people would probably rather see the other
people
> in
>> the world fend for themselves or starve to death rather than be paid
low
>> wages (minimum wage or nothing at all...).
>>
>> androids could thus allow for a cheap workforce, and also for wealthier
>> countries to ignore the populous of less wealthy countries (leaving
them
> to
>> fend for themselves and so on...).
>>
>
> If you create intelligent androids, you'll make the situation worse.
> There
> will be plenty of newly unemployed Americans, in addition to the
abundance
> of poor workers already here, that will be available for work. You'd
need
> to solve the "how to provide an equitable lifestyle to most Americans
> without them working" problem prior to unlea****ng numerous androids into
> the
> workforce. I.e., you'd need to find a solution that would put an end
> capitalism and monetization of goods and services, without resorting to
> communism or socialism, etc. IMO, that would require the ability to
> produce
> a huge set of identical resources and custom resources from which each
> individual would choose what they want and need. The identical resource
> problem can't be solved for things which are rare. But, for many
things,
> it
> can be. With a zero-cost, infinite source of electrons, nearly all
> manufacturing and farming could progress to an exceptionally low cost
> structure. With such a source of electrons, you could purify ore for
> free,
> manufacture pure water, farm food in skyscrapers with lighting, make
fuels
> and medicines, etc. etc. on a huge scale for little or no cost. The
> remaining costs for many industries would just be any human labor and
any
> limited natural resources. Such an energy source, one that is far far
far
> beyond the needs of humanity for thousands of years, could set the
ground
> work for such a society.
>
that or the remaining workforce either has to strive to work in higher
industries, or compete with the mechanized workforce. labor then becomes a
commodity resource of sorts...
then again, modern technologies have largely eliminated many kinds of jobs
as well (cotton picking, factory workers, meat-processing workers, textile
workers, m***** of people calculating numbers and filling in charts and
tables, ...), these jobs are not well missed.
not that many people are so disappointed that they can no longer get a job
picking and peeling corn cobs, separating cotton fibers from the seeds,
endlessly screwing down bolts or putting lids on jars, ...
machines will just take away some kinds of mental jobs, in much the same
way
as they have taken away many physical-labor jobs.
but, yes, I guess these are all still possible concerns...
>
> Rod Pemberton
>
|
