> On 26 Apr 2019, at 15:33, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals > > John Basl is assistant professor of philosophy at Northeastern University in > Boston > > https://aeon.co/ideas/ais-should-have-the-same-ethical-protections-as-animals > > ... > > A puzzle and difficulty arises here because the scientific study of > consciousness has not reached a consensus about what consciousness is, and > how we can tell whether or not it is present. On some views – ‘liberal’ views > – for consciousness to exist requires nothing but a certain type of > well-organised information-processing, such as a flexible informational model > of the system in relation to objects in its environment, with guided > attentional capacities and long-term action-planning. We might be on the > verge of creating such systems already. On other views – ‘conservative’ views > – consciousness might require very specific biological features, such as a > brain very much like a mammal brain in its low-level structural details: in > which case we are nowhere near creating artificial consciousness. > > It is unclear which type of view is correct or whether some other explanation > will in the end prevail. However, if a liberal view is correct, we might soon > be creating many subhuman AIs who will deserve ethical protection. There lies > the moral risk. > > Discussions of ‘AI risk’ normally focus on the risks that new AI technologies > might pose to us humans, such as taking over the world and destroying us, or > at least gumming up our banking system. Much less discussed is the ethical > risk we pose to the AIs, through our possible mistreatment of them.
The humans are still the main threat for the human. The idea to give human right to AI does not make music sense. It is part of the work of the AI to learn to defend themselves. We can be open mind, and listen, but defending their right can only threat the human right, I would say. In the theology of the machine, it can be proved that hell is paved with the good intentions … (amazingly enough, and accepting some definitions, of course). > > > My 'conservative' view: information processing (alone) does not achieve > experience (consciousness) processing. Mechanism makes you right on this, although it can depend how information processing is defined. Consciousness is not in the processing, but in truth, or in the semantic related to that processing,. The processing itself by is only a relative concept, where consciousness is an absolute thing. Bruno > > https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/10/14/experience-processing/ > > > -@philipthrift <https://twitter.com/philipthrift> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
