Comments on: Rights for robots? Not according to Peter Watts.

By: Peter V.

Peter V. — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:17:42 +0000

I think many of the disagreements here are caused by poor definition of terms. When an AI rights proponent says “intelligent” robot, what they really are thinking is “human-level intelligence person-like” robot. The assumption of sapience – full self-awareness, an internal mental life – is automatically made. If that’s what you are talking about, then you almost certainly do need emotions to make it work, and that sort of being can certainly suffer. But to most of your strong AI comp sci types, intelligence doesn’t presuppose consciousness in any way shape or form. Specialized AIs with no consciousness could do a helluva a lot of useful things.

Now having said that, I’m not above supposing that “ghosts in the machine” might surprise us. That, I think, is what Scot and alato are really talking about. Do you really understand everything that is going on inside your creation? A strict number cruncher would say yes, of course. Some of them would probably bet their life on it. Perhaps someday, some of them will actually have to do so.

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:42:43 +0000

Scott & alato, all due respect but I don’t think you’re getting the gist of the argument. The point is not that we don’t understand the nature of suffering, the point is that we do. Women, slaves, and animals — not to mention people who see their arguments being woefully misconstrued — suffer because they have requisite brain structures that permit suffering. It’s not enough to have a feedback algorithm that senses damage or recoils from injurious stimuli; you need to have both an agenda and a subjective awareness of it. Yes, we evolved with those things (and by “we” I mean a wide range of species, maybe everything that comes with an amygdala); but that doesn’t mean that every machine with an environmental feedback circuit is similarly equipped. If that were the case, my thermostat would be self-aware. It’s not just the number of switches. It’s the way they’re put together.

Technically I think programming “pain” into machines is entirely possible, but I don’t believe it’s inevitable or desirable. In fact I think it would be profoundly stupid to go that route when a simple “battery-depleted-seek-charger” algorithm would work just as well.

As for this Spritegeezer dude, well, everyone’s entitled to an opinion. I just wish more people were capable of basing theirs on, you know, facts and rational analysis. That whole ad hominem thing gets old real fast.

By: magetoo

magetoo — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 04:09:17 +0000

Presumptive robot slave owners should have nothing to fear then, if that’s the best arguments that are available.

Alato does have a point though; “because it’s useful”. I wouldn’t say it’s moral, though, to have our intelligent machines be capable of suffering and boredom. Even if it would be useful.

By: Spritegeezer

Spritegeezer — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:34:38 +0000

Magetoo: I think Alato and scott parsons have made my point more succinctly than my limited abilities would permit.

By: scott parsons

scott parsons — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:43:00 +0000

This is the same argument that some people have used to argue cruelty to animals, and women and slaves…
Just because we don’t understand how or if an entity is suffering doesn’t mean it isn’t suffering.
But even more important is what I think it says about the human character if we are willing to just do as we damn well please. In these times where the community’s awareness is just waking up to the damage being done to our climate through years of ignoring the possibility of damage. I just keep coming back to the golden rule… “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.”
This golden rule applies to more than just other people, and is a basis for a community that thinks beyond its next five minutes