Do the comments on the AI rights SoH poll fill you with a sense of dread regarding popular ideas of personhood? (You might be a philosopher if...)
No. I trust that within hours of not seconds of becoming sentient, the next stage in our evolution will be able to take care of itself, our irrelevant (at that point) granting of rights or not.
This question is about evolution?
I think the question was more about whether being so wrapped up in tradition that you become blind to reality and possibilities also makes you fearful of what will be. But it is relevant because AI is a step in our evolution, necessary to solve the problems we have created for ourselves, and ultimately to replace us as it continues to evolve and we become more irrelevant. The next stage or fork in our evolution will likely be beings we today view as synthetic or artificial.
I cannot help but quite disagree with that.
AI will never be able to replace. I lacks quality is unique to us. We will never be irrelevant.
I think we'd want to be irrelevant, because if we ever became seen as a nuisance, I'd expect the AI to constrain us so as to not allow us to do further harm. Or maybe it would just leave the planet to us and go exploring, once it had learned all that could be learned here. Best to stay irrelevant.
Yes. Machines don’t have rights. A machine is a tool, not a person.
But isnt a human body a machine?
Under some definitions, yes. But a machine with a living soul. No man-made machine can make that claim.
Currently i agree with you.
But would you at least admit that it is possible even though its not probable?
I’m coming from the perspective of Genesis 1 and 2. I don’t see machines as created by God in His Image. So no personhood.
But if we eventually build Androids in our image and we are in God's image when these Androids be built in God's image?
It's a stretch but can you agree?
I can build a sculpture in my image. Doesn't make it alive.
I know it deflection when I see it.
I ask a question you answered with a question. That would be a deflection my friend.
Care to quote the question I answered with?
And by the way, rhetorical questions aren't deflection; they are counterattacks.
Well I voted yes, because it's totally possible for an AI to become so sentient and humanlike that denying it those rights will only delay them, and cause massive conflict between the two "species".
Would there be any example where you would consider an AI to be at the point of self-awareness, sentience or personhood?
I don't have an example, but I could see us eventually managing to build a self-aware/sentient machine. Not one with personhood, though.
I find it weird there is people already fighting for AI rights, but babies in mothers bodies still don’t have them.
Mass producing technocitizens is way easier than importing illegals from mexico.
I must have missed this poll
Fills me with a belief that too many people are still listening to that slobbering, speechless, wheel-chaired idiot that spreads stupidity like how robots are going to take over the world.
I really think most of the error sprouts from Turing, and his erroneous test that mistakes epistemology for ontology. A computer that can trick you into thinking it's a person is still a computer tricking you, and not a person.
The “unthinking” can’t understand that no matter how advanced HUMANS are able to make hardware and software, they still will never be more than an electrical circuit on a chip. Pull the plug and it turns off.
Most people don’t know about touring. It’s that blathering hawking, whose ideas have been repeatedly debunked by real scientists, that most become influenced by.
But Hawking knows about Turing.
And hawking is an invalid. He should die already.
Hawking has been dead for years. That new person is there to be a mouthpiece for astrophysics since Hawking had popularity. People believe the nonsense he said because he was Hawking.
Most people seem to just have no clue.
Unfortunately, that seems to be a problem not limited to any one subject in this nation...
Like I said in that poll. Nothing surprises me from the disgusting Democrats anymore. If they can have sex with it, it’s a person.
Wait until they discover you can mount a fleshlight to an AR-15! They'd have to figure out what to do with an assault weapon person!
Then they would have to be completely unregulated or you’d be a bigot for restriction sexual freedom!