Artificial intelligence

[Laufen]

Instead of mucking up the "self-aware robot" thread, let's move this over here. Romy kind of kicked this off, let's see where it goes.

As far as intelligence goes, what's the bar? We have a fairly universal (kind of) idea of what equals mistreatment of animals, and it usually depends on complexity. Swatting mosquitoes is fine, but swatting kittens is bad. Or, more hypocritically, eating steers is fine and eating the family dog is wrong. So at which level of intelligence or complexity does an artificial system garner special treatment above and beyond how you would treat a lawnmower?

 

[madHatter]

Depends on how ethical you are as a person.

If it is a sentient being and can move about on its own without discourse or interference from an outside sources, then it should be treated with the same respect and dignity as other sentient beings.

However, should the being go "rogue" (for lack of better understanding/word choice) then kicking the lawnmower is appropriate.

I will have more to add when I can reference some of my old ethics books.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

I think it all boils down to this idea of being "self-aware." Does the thing have an "identity" unique unto itself? I'm sure it will be brought up here but if you haven't seen the movies Short Circuit 1 & 2, A) get out of my country and B) I think they do a really good job of having this discussion. "No disassemble." I remember, even as a kid, being emotionally perplexed when those thugs were smashing Johnny 5 up with the sledgehammers in the alley - it was a weird mixture of confusion and compassion.

Can we create an "intelligence" that is "aware?" Eventually....yes, I think we will. Will it be "alive?" Eh....on this day, I say no.

 

[madHatter]

I think it all boils down to this idea of being "self-aware." Does the thing have an "identity" unique unto itself? I'm sure it will be brought up here but if you haven't seen the movies Short Circuit 1 & 2, A) get out of my country and B) I think they do a really good job of having this discussion. "No disassemble." I remember, even as a kid, being emotionally perplexed when those thugs were smashing Johnny 5 up with the sledgehammers in the alley - it was a weird mixture of confusion and compassion.

Can we create an "intelligence" that is "aware?" Eventually....yes, I think we will. Will it be "alive?" Eh....on this day, I say no.

We including chappie in this mix?

 

[rOmiLaYu]

We including chappie in this mix?

What's a "chappie?"

 

[madHatter]

What's a "chappie?"

Chappie is similar to Johnny 5... Imdb that.

 

[Shemp]

I think emotion is the key...think along the lines of iRobot. We could create androids that can "help" us that maintain the ability to act on its own based upon a set of rules or a prime directive. An intelligent mechanical slave is one thing, that same object with the ability to have emotion is another. I guess that begs another question...how to you subjectively know it's feeling emotion?

I would feel no more compassion for a toaster that knows when I want toast and has it ready for than my phone.

 

[Laufen]

I think it all boils down to this idea of being "self-aware." Does the thing have an "identity" unique unto itself? I'm sure it will be brought up here but if you haven't seen the movies Short Circuit 1 & 2, A) get out of my country and B) I think they do a really good job of having this discussion. "No disassemble." I remember, even as a kid, being emotionally perplexed when those thugs were smashing Johnny 5 up with the sledgehammers in the alley - it was a weird mixture of confusion and compassion.

Can we create an "intelligence" that is "aware?" Eventually....yes, I think we will. Will it be "alive?" Eh....on this day, I say no.

Having an identity unto itself still doesn't prevent humans from eating beings that fall into this category. Just about every edible animal on the planet is on the diet of some group of human.

Being edible seems to present a perplexing ethical dilemma to humans. Wow, you definitely have your own unique personality but you're soooo delicious, I think I'll eat you.

 

[madHatter]

Having an identity unto itself still doesn't prevent humans from eating beings that fall into this category. Just about every edible animal on the planet is on the diet of some group of human.

Being edible seems to present a perplexing ethical dilemma to humans. Wow, you definitely have your own unique personality but you're soooo delicious, I think I'll eat you.

Taste good with ketchup? I would imagine so, all sorts of good beers in there

 

[Laufen]

I think emotion is the key...think along the lines of iRobot. We could create androids that can "help" us that maintain the ability to act on its own based upon a set of rules or a prime directive. An intelligent mechanical slave is one thing, that same object with the ability to have emotion is another. I guess that begs another question...how to you subjectively know it's feeling emotion?

I would feel no more compassion for a toaster that knows when I want toast and has it ready for than my phone.

I'm not sure that would matter in the end. Animals feel emotion, have dreams, etc and we still consume them.

 

[Shemp]

I'm not sure that would matter in the end. Animals feel emotion, have dreams, etc and we still consume them.

That is a necessary evil. Nature eats itself.
You can't escape it if your vegan either as there is some evidence that plants and communicate and "feel"....though the is in its very early stages of understanding.

Do you treat your smart phone with the same compassion as your dog? Would it matter if your smartphone could decide things for itself but do so in only an elementary non-emotional way?

I suppose I envision a world of logic driven robots...not emotional beings. I wouldn't hit a dog because I know it has emotions ...

 

[Laufen]

That is a necessary evil. Nature eats itself.
You can't escape it if your vegan either as there is some evidence that plants and communicate and "feel"....though the is in its very early stages of understanding.

Do you treat your smart phone with the same compassion as your dog? Would it matter if your smartphone could decide things for itself but do so in only an elementary non-emotional way?

I suppose I envision a world of logic driven robots...not emotional beings. I wouldn't hit a dog because I know it has emotions ...

We could escape it. It is actually not necessary, it it our culture that perpetuates it. Yes nature eats itself, however, it does not raise animals strictly for consumption.
Humans could live without consuming animals, it would take a huge change of culture though. Just look at all of our traditions that revolve around the consumption of living things.

We still consume animals with the same or superior mental faculties as dogs, feeling emotion and pain just the same. The line of distinction doesn't seem to be in logical.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

Chappie is similar to Johnny 5... Imdb that.

Wow...and fairly recent, too. I'm not really "current" when it comes to movies.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

I think emotion is the key...think along the lines of iRobot. We could create androids that can "help" us that maintain the ability to act on its own based upon a set of rules or a prime directive. An intelligent mechanical slave is one thing, that same object with the ability to have emotion is another. I guess that begs another question...how to you subjectively know it's feeling emotion?

I would feel no more compassion for a toaster that knows when I want toast and has it ready for than my phone.

Also, don't overlook the subtle power of anthropomorphism when it comes to technology. A toaster that looked like you is going to affect you differently than a toaster that looks like, well, a toaster.

As to "emotions," ultimately they are just chemical signals.... 0's and 1's if you will. There's not reason that a machine could not eventually "experience" them. "Emotions," though, do not make something "alive."

 

[madHatter]

Wow...and fairly recent, too. I'm not really "current" when it comes to movies.

This surprises me.

 

[madHatter]

Oh one more thing that has not been mentioned yet.



Decepticons.

 

[Laufen]

Also, don't overlook the subtle power of anthropomorphism when it comes to technology. A toaster that looked like you is going to affect you differently than a toaster that looks like, well, a toaster.

As to "emotions," ultimately they are just chemical signals.... 0's and 1's if you will. There's not reason that a machine could not eventually "experience" them. "Emotions," though, do not make something "alive."

If you aren't up on newer movies, scrap the Chappie idea and watch Ex Machina.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

Having an identity unto itself still doesn't prevent humans from eating beings that fall into this category. Just about every edible animal on the planet is on the diet of some group of human.

Being edible seems to present a perplexing ethical dilemma to humans. Wow, you definitely have your own unique personality but you're soooo delicious, I think I'll eat you.

I see your point, but I would argue that most mainstay consumption grade animals are not self-aware nor are they on the developing world's harvest list. Granted monkey and chimpanzee are consumed in certain parts of the world but not at, say, the quantity that cattle, goat, and sheep are.

Define "self-aware?" Years ago I saw an experiment where a researcher put a bright circular sticker on the forehead of different gorillas and toddlers. Every single time, the gorillas would reach out and try to take it off the gorilla in the mirror whereas the toddlers would look at the mirror for a second, then point to it on their own head and try to take it off. It might not be a perfect definition, but it's good enough for me and by that standard, I would feel comfortable eating anything that didn't point to it's own forehead.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

This surprises me.

Yeah...the last movie I saw in a theatre was...honestly, I can't even remember. I'm somewhat of a home-body to begin with...then you get married, have two kids....well, you get the idea. I'm particularly boring and uninteresting. It's true.

 

[Laufen]

I see your point, but I would argue that most mainstay consumption grade animals are not self-aware nor are they on the developing world's harvest list. Granted monkey and chimpanzee are consumed in certain parts of the world but not at, say, the quantity that cattle, goat, and sheep are.

Define "self-aware?" Years ago I saw an experiment where a researcher put a bright circular sticker on the forehead of different gorillas and toddlers. Every single time, the gorillas would reach out and try to take it off the gorilla in the mirror whereas the toddlers would look at the mirror for a second, then point to it on their own head and try to take it off. It might not be a perfect definition, but it's good enough for me and by that standard, I would feel comfortable eating anything that didn't point to it's own forehead.

I wonder if the primates had been previously exposed to mirrors, and had a chance to figure out what they were seeing.
There aren't many regularly eaten animals that I've been around smarter than pigs. I have to admit, knowing the depth and breadth of emotions that animals like cattle, pigs, sheep, goats experience, it is a bit disconcerting to raise them as food. It is for me anyway, and I grew up on a farm, and have worked in a meat processing plant. To extend to those animals the same compassion and love as the beloved family dog is accurate and logical, yet most of us do not.