Ethics: Robots and AI

Post Reply New Topic

I am going to have to be in the right frame of mind to read that, but I can't wait. Thank you so much for understanding the kind of thing I like!

It's always possible to get better-informed. Trying to convince me that I need to raise my standards is just turning into a derailment of the thread. Anyone reading this will have figured out that we won't agree, and will wonder why we keep going on about it.

Any other aspects of this question that you would care to discuss besides your opinion of my intellectual standards?

Just that I do see two competing worldviews that are really popular on the topic of US and generally western interventionism with respect to Islamism. One is the Noam Chomsky direction - ie. that what's happening in the middle-east isn't a religious or cultural war but it's grievances over western imperialism and the chickens coming home to roost. On a different pole you have Sam Harris's approach that Islamists, who kill far more muslims than they do any other group, are motivated by embracing the beliefs in 72 virgins, paradise on the other side of the blade of the enemy, etc.. and that both their behavior as well as deep concern on the part of the modern west and even moderated attempts at going after the leaders of such groups is appropriate.

I'd agree that when they cross certain lines, such as groups blowing things up or doing mass shootings in the US, UK, France, Belgium, Germany, Turkey, etc. that they've crossed a certain line where their actions have consequences and that the west is dealing with an international crime syndicate, religiously motivated or not, and some countries are up for the task of bringing them in and dealing with them based on intelligence data, others aren't, and where they aren't we're stuck in a very grey area where on one hand you can't run rough-shod over the sovereignty of other nations, at the same time you can't allow certain countries who are either shell-states or only semi-sovereign to be safe spaces for them either. There's hardly a way to win in that scenario and play perfectly by the book.

I guess I'd have to know what aspect of you this you'd consider lawless as well - ie. do you think the US has standards for who gets droned? Do you think there's a vetting and review process? Are you just speaking in terms of international lines getting broken without consent? That's more where I'm going.

Thanks for stating your position, and also for the callback to the first post. I have another to add:

What are the limits for letting our semi-autonomous robots out into the wild?

We're actually getting into this one with automobile safety technology. That gets a very serious review, by different agencies around the world, but are they asking all the right questions?

How about if I want to make a little bot to collect my mail? It waits on the porch and senses when the postman comes. It then evaluates the mail and secures it. It could probably be done with today's tech, and considering how Porch Pirates have been all over the news here, I'd feel surprised if someone isn't already working on it. They are certainly smart, and I'll generously assume that they put a lot of effort into safety. Human stupidity will always have the potential to exceed the effort spent on safety. Go go hypotheticals, or we can just agree that the legislatures won't have nearly as good a grasp of the problem as the average well informed PPR poster. We can assume that people will sue, and we can lastly assume that the courts will stay busy. Anyone looking for a legal specialization, I offer this for your consideration.

In addition to the public service announcements, suggesting to parents that they should talk to their young children, we have this.



Will a human child, designed by millions of years of evolution to be endearing to every other mammal on earth, be able to compete with a companion designed to anticipate our every need and provide access to fulfillment of our every want?

Mommy loves her robot more than she loves me.

Experts want sex robots regulated

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... says-study

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017 ... dark-side/

http://responsiblerobotics.org/2017/07/ ... th-robots/

The coverage discusses everything we wrote here about the issue of sex robots and AI. Of the four manufacturers, one has a robot with a "frigid" setting. It seems obvious, and disturbing, why someone would want a sex robot to refuse sex. Should it be illegal? Will it provide a safe outlet for otherwise unacceptable desires, or will it encourage the abuse of actual people? Will there be research or a moral panic?

Kevin Kelly had some really interesting ideas on the Waking Up podcast, particularly attempting a sort of taxonomy for the evolution of technology in the way we've run taxonomy on biological life. Lots of other really good issues get tackled here as well.

I did not expect this. Listen to: Could You Kill A Robot? - http://one.npr.org/i/536043276:536505014

It turns out that soldiers get really attached to the robots which (who?) detect mines and IEDs, giving them medals and funerals. These are not anthropomorphic robots, either.

The robots we will eventually welcome into our lives will look and act like cartoon sidekicks.

So here are my ideas on the topic:
What I think we should ask ourselves is, what is the fundamental difference between humans and robots?
By 'fundamental difference' I do not mean being made of metal versus flesh and the like, but rather things like having feelings.
Let's first look at what makes humans humans. I think it is safe to say that humans are essentially brains, so we could say that human bodies are some sort of life-support vehicles for our brains. Now that we've got that out of the way, what are robots essentially? Let's assume that robots are artificial, self-learning machines that can live without human intervention. The thing that defines a robot is its code. The difference between a brain and a code seems a bit obvious now: it's physical sensations, right? Neurotransmitters and other molecules generate chemical reactions, causing feelings and such. But that's where we'll have to slow down a bit: the thing that causes feelings is different, but are the feelings themselves really different? Or, do they even exist?
Perhaps feelings are just an illusion created by us humans. If this is the case, then humans and robots aren't really that different after all; robots could simulate feelings of terror and sorrow and yet they would be no different from us, since we do too.