Mr Worf, in the course of my Internet life, I've heard many a tale of 'bots. >From ones that just walk around and talk and make humans happy to ones that DARPA's developed as part of their SERE program which have escaped containment when their human holders were sleeping. I seriously suspect that this dialogue is long past due, as there probably already are sentient AIs out there. The only question I ask is, "What happens after they see 'Spartacus' ?"
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Mr. Worf <hellomahog...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Robots, Consciousness and Rights > <http://omnikool.discovery.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html/1342634297/Top3/default/empty.gif/535066614230786455654941414a4e67?x> > <http://news.discovery.com/contributors/jonathan-strickland/> Analysis by > Jonathan > Strickland <http://news.discovery.com/contributors/jonathan-strickland/> > Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:13 AM ET > 39 > Comments<http://news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html#view-comments>| > Leave > a > Comment<http://news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html#post-a-comment> > Print<http://news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html?print=true> > Email > > - > Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html> > - > Twitter<http://wd.sharethis.com/api/sharer.php?destination=twitter&url=http://news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html&title=Robots,%20Consciousness%20and%20Rights%20:%20Discovery%20News> > - > Digg<http://digg.com/submit?url=http://news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html&title=Robots,%20Consciousness%20and%20Rights%20:%20Discovery%20News&bodytext=Recently,%20I%27ve%20been%20researching%20artificial%20intelligence%20and%20consciousness%20for%20HowStuffWorks.com.%20While%20exploring%20the%20possibilities%20of%20machines%20with%20&topic=television> > - Yahoo! > Buzz<http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?publisherurn=discovery_cha79&targetUrl=http://news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html&submitHeadline=Robots,%20Consciousness%20and%20Rights%20:%20Discovery%20News> > > [image: > Deep-blue-1]<http://blogs.discovery.com/.a/6a00d8341bf67c53ef01310fc9c22e970c-pi>Recently, > I've been researching artificial intelligence and consciousness > for HowStuffWorks.com <http://www.howstuffworks.com/>. While exploring the > possibilities of machines with self-awareness, I'm drawn to the debate about > whether an artificially intelligent construct has the same rights as a > biological entity. In other words, if we built a robot or computer that > could seemingly think on its own and was aware of its own existence, should > we give it the same rights and privileges we have as humans? > > The question itself may be moot. Our own understanding of the human brain > is still limited. While some scientists and doctors are working on building > a computer simulation of the brain, they're doing so without knowing all the > details of how the brain works. It's like finding a mysterious machine and > then reconstructing it without actually understanding what makes it tick. It > may be impossible for us to create a machine capable of real thought and > self-awareness. > > To make the debate even more complicated, there's no way to know if machine > consciousness would resemble human consciousness. When it comes to the > conscious mind, we have a very small sample size from which we can > extrapolate. While a machine brain would be the product of human ingenuity > (or possibly the product of another machine that was itself the product of > human ingenuity), it's impossible to know right now if a conscious, thinking > machine would have an intelligence comparable to ours. Would it experience > emotion (simulated or otherwise)? Would it come to the conclusion that > people are at best a messy threat that should be eliminated? Or would it > just process the tasks we give it and never think beyond those parameters? > > There are dozens of science fiction stories that deal with machine > consciousness and the ethical dilemmas that follow. There are doomsday tales > that suggest machines will rise up against biological entities. There's > Kurzweil's theory of the > singularity<http://www.howstuffworks.com/technological-singularity.htm>, > one version of which sees humans and machines merging together to create a > new species beyond our imaginations. And there's the movie A.I., in which > the audience feels empathy for a synthetic creature that possesses an > intelligence and awareness that it doesn't understand. Are any of these > futures likely? > > I once participated in an alternate reality game (ARG) in which the players > were given the task of voting to bestow or deny basic rights to thinking > machines. My philosophy is that creating a machine that can think isn't a > great idea. It makes sense to build machines that are good at what they do > but I don't see the need to design thinking versions. I certainly don't need > my toaster outsmarting me on a daily basis. I voted against giving machines > rights, though at that point it's really too late. > > What are the right questions to ask about artificial consciousness? And do > you think we'll ever reach a point where we can create a truly conscious > machine? We've seen Deep Blue defeat chess master > Kasparov<http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/>. > We've also seen a computer at > Cornell<http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April09/NaturalLaws.ws.html>extrapolate > the basic laws of physics by observing a swinging pendulum. How > far are we from hearing a computer telling us what's on its mind? > > *Image from AP Photo/Adam Nadel* > > > -- > Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! > Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ > > -- "If all the world's a stage and we are merely players, who the bloody hell wrote the script?" -- Charles E Grant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik
