This Question Again

[Death Dark]

Oh, right, it was lost to the server juggling.  Now that everything appears to be stable, let me try to ask again, but this time more directly.


     All instances of Artificial Intelligence at this moment are what are known as "weak AI."  Weak AI is a system that is taught to perform a certain task or a certain set of tasks.  However, outside of those tasks, it can't do much.  For example, an AI taught to play Super Smash Bros. Brawl won't be very good at driving a car, but the AI that knows how to drive a car wouldn't do very well in Halo.

     There is still the concept of Strong AI.  A strong artificial intelligence has yet to be created, but is still fully possible.  Loosely put, a Strong Artificial Intelligence (SAI) is a system that is taught how to think and make educated decisions.  In other words, it's an all-purpose intelligence, similar to human intellect.

     The development of such a system, even one, would change the state of the world.  Without giving you a proper informed opinion (mine), I want to see what each of you think.  Don't worry about whether you're right or wrong; the important thing is I'm given a proper glimpse into what people think on the subjects.

1)  Could we consider an SAI a person? (It's obviously not a human, that's not what I'm asking)
2)  What rights would an SAI deserve?
3)  What do you think the goal of an SAI would be?  What would they want to do with their lives?
4)  How do you think an SAI would affect religion?
     a)  Do they have a "soul"?
     b)  Are they enemies or allies of religion?

     If you could just do me a favor and answer any of those questions you find prevalent to yourself and give me any other thoughts you have on the subject, I'd be greatly appreciative.  I'll be using the results of what's said here in my CS Term Paper (don't worry, I won't said who said it) as a rough survey.  After I get the paper done, I'll answer any important questions and give you an insight from the point of view from a Computer Scientist (who'd be developing such a SAI).

Thanks,
Death Dark

[Hobro]

1). Why would we? It is a tool. It serves a function. It does not require social interaction, compassion/love, nutritional value, etc. to function or perform its role.
2).  Whatever rights would be necessary for it to perform its role effectively, but still protect the rights of humanity (4 laws lul).
3). They don't have a life, they are a digitally created entity, just because it feels does not make it any less of a program. It's goal would be whatever it was programmed to do. Whether to make political/economic decisions or to  be a military strategist.
4) a). Again. they are a digitally created entity. They have no more a soul than a mook in a video game. Simply because they can make educated decisions based on outside influences does not give them a soul.
b). It all depends on how it is programmed to understand data previously mentioned outside influences. If the AI featured in the Halo series and other sci-fi series are anything to go by, each AI had an individual personality, which could lead to some finding a reason to believe in a greater entity while others could easily dismiss it by other data.

[MegaRock35]

1)  Could we consider an SAI a person? (It's obviously not a human, that's not what I'm asking)?

Hmm, well... It really depends. An SAI could be able to learn and make decisions without really being human like. I'd only be able to consider it a "person" if it could feel and had emotions. However, that kind of thing is superfluous and would only cause problems, so it's more practical that an SAI would never be given such abilities. Realistically, then, I'd say an SAI wouldn't be a "person."

2)  What rights would an SAI deserve?

Er, this is something I'm conflicted on. I think it should definitely be given the same limitations humans are given. However, rights are a more complicated matter. I feel it would be wrong to treat an SAI on the level of humans in sentience/intelligence/whatever as property (an animal like SAI, on the other hand, I think would be okay to treat as property). But at the same time, I'm a bit uneasy about giving them all the same rights as humans, as they are not truly alive. Ultimately, I'd say I'm conflicted on this and really don't know.

3)  What do you think the goal of an SAI would be?  What would they want to do with their lives?

Assuming that you mean it was not pre-programmed, then an SAI's goals in "life" would be just as varied as that of humans. Not all people want to do the same things with their lives, and I don't think all SAIs would want to do the same thing, either.

4)  How do you think an SAI would affect religion?

If anything, it would increasese my belief in God, because it show just how damn hard it is for this level of intelligence to be created on purpose, let alone by accident.

     a)  Do they have a "soul"?

I don't think it would, as it is not truly alive, but I obviously do not know what a soul really is, so it's possible that they might.

     b)  Are they enemies or allies of religion?

As a whole, SAIs would be neutral, just as humans are. As individuals, they could be either, just as humans are. It really depends on what each individual SAI chooses to believe.

Well, I find this to be an interesting discussion, and I'm eager to see what you have to say on the matter. When do you think your paper will be done?

[Death Dark]

It's due tomorrow.  So... hopefully tonight sometime.

[Forte]

Ignore paper. Turn in MegaMan X Collection.

All problems solved.

[Death Dark]

That's simply one take on the idea.  I could very well turn in the Terminator series, the Matrix series, and I, Robot amongst other takes of the same or similar ideas.  However, the goal is to present probable outcome and the facts on the matter, not the version that'll sell games/movies.

[Hobro]

facts on the matter

Facts formed on unconfirmed data?

I thought you religiously opposed that.

[Death Dark]

facts on the matter

Facts formed on unconfirmed data?

Spoiler:  the study of artificial intelligence actually exists.

[Hobro]

Study on their souls? Morality? Their possible deserving of rights?

Okay.

[Death Dark]

A swing and a miss.

Forte, I know you commented on this the first time, and I wouldn't mind hearing your opinion again now that there are more specific questions, they'd be good to use in the paper.

[Forte]

I actually commented on this the day that bryansoft.info decided it would suspend itself. That was also the same day I said to myself "I should make a backup of the forum tables."

Maybe I shouldn't say anything or else this server will die, too.

1)  Could we consider an SAI a person?

No. The term "person" is exclusive to being a member of the group called humans. While any advanced AI should be considered "alive", calling it a person would be... insulting.

2)  What rights would an SAI deserve?

As long as we're not making these AI so that we won't have to have actual animals anymore, which is a waste of good code, we're probably going to stick them into a human like body, and as such, they deserve basic human rights.

3)  What do you think the goal of an SAI would be?  What would they want to do with their lives?

Bottom line is that if we create these things, they won't have a goal in their "life". The way we as humans operate is to perform studies upon what we create, so any form of intelligence created by us to mimic us would become nothing more than a slave to science. Its entire "life" would be a series of mental tests previously deemed unethical to perform on humans. I could sit here and make up tons of things, really, but there's no reason to go into what particular studies could be performed.

Thinking about it, this argues with my statement that they deserve basic human rights. Not that they don't, but that they wouldn't be given such.

4)  How do you think an SAI would affect religion?
     a)  Do they have a "soul"?
     b)  Are they enemies or allies of religion?

I don't really see what that has to do with this. You would have be pretty unsure about your religion for anything like this to question it.

But in my opinion, no. They wouldn't have a soul. I don't think that the soul is a product of our rational thought, and in fact, I prefer to think that it is what produces it. I almost feel like I could write an entire paper about this, myself, so I won't carry on about it for too long.

[Death Dark]

     All right, the time has come for the questions to be answered properly.  While there will inevitably be bias in my answers, as I have opinions on the matter, I am also informed and understand the operation and construction of Artificial Intelligence systems.

1)  Could we consider an SAI a person? (It's obviously not a human, that's not what I'm asking)

     The term "person" means "a self-conscious or rational being," philosophically speaking (most other definitions are directly correlated to humanity).  While the simple man's answer may just be to pass off an SAI as a machine, the fact of the matter stands that they have, in theory, the full span of capabilities of humans, if not more.  Personality, quirks, emotions, ideas, and opinions can all be simulated using a properly trained system, though they would not necessarily be properties of the first system that comes along.  I use the term "simulated" loosely here, as there's no way to tell whether the system actually, say, feels sad, or it's portraying the emotional state of being sad as a result of its training.  Does it actually like the color purple, or was it trained to like the color purple?  Questions like this cannot actually be strictly answered, and we end up in a dilemma similar to certain human ponderings, such as "do I actually like small girls, or was it the way I was raised?"  Ultimately, there's no tangible difference between a system that would seem to act and operate self-consciously and rationally, and a system that "actually does."

     The personhood of the SAI also implies how the system should be treated.  Whether one can be owned, for example, will become a major issue.  Currently, anti-slavery laws and policies, and even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights only applies to, well, humans.  Such organizations and laws would have to be altered to accept or reject these new beings now brought into existence.  Reliably, strong anti-SAI sentiment will rise with reactions like "it is a tool" and "it does not require ... love," and thus a new wave of discrimination will run rampant amongst the less-intelligent of our world, similar to opinions regarding racism, sexism, and anti-homosexuality.  I think the most pathetic part is not that the SAI will join the end of the string, but that the string exists to begin with.

2)  What rights would an SAI deserve?

     The needs of an SAI would naturally differ from mankind.  They may not need nourishment or sleep, as Hobo so graciously pointed out, but at the same time they may.  Feeding on electricity is likely an important part of their day, and a sleeping cycle would allow for mechanical parts to rest, backups to be created, charging to be done efficiently, and perhaps for the AI algorithms to run their full course (essentially resolve the "epoch" to progress the intelligence).

     However, the needs of an SAI and its rights are two drastically opposed things.  The closest to the "right" answer here would be Forte's answer, though it seems to imply the humanoid body necessary for the rights, which should not be the case.  Generally speaking, there's no specific reason that an SAI should be denied rights that would be granted to a human.  It is true the system may not be "alive," biologically speaking, but there is no cause to not consider the system sentient.

     Because of the improbability of an accurate representation of the human psyche through a computer system, the end result of an SAI cannot be guaranteed.  However, the particular idiosyncrasies of the system would have to be studied and taken account of before any specific rights should be granted to the system.  It may be such that due to the way the system ends up rendering, the SAI cannot properly aim and fire a gun.  It should then be taken away from the SAI the right to bear arms.  In other words, specifically speaking, SAI should be granted and excluded from rights as best to protect them and humans, objectively.

3)  What do you think the goal of an SAI would be?  What would they want to do with their lives?

     The answer to this is best given by Mr. 35:  "an SAI's goals in 'life' would be just as varied as that of humans. Not all people want to do the same things with their lives, and I don't think all SAIs would want to do the same thing, either."  As previously mentioned, due to the particular implementation, there may seem to be a trend in the goals of SAI, but we can assume that ahead of time.

     This question and its responses also bring us into more interesting questions.  Mr. 35's answer begins with "assuming that you mean it was not pre-programmed."  This, amongst a number of the other answers, is a stark indication of a lack of understanding of artificial intelligence, though this one portrayed it in the most plainly spoken manner.  Ignorance of the topic is understandable, by all means, but it does not keep the false assumptions away.

(to be continued)

4)  How do you think an SAI would affect religion?

     a)  Do they have a "soul"?

     b)  Are they enemies or allies of religion?

[MegaRock35]

...assuming that you mean it was not pre-programmed...

It wasn't until I saw it written out that I realized I should've added "to have a specific goal." Of course it was pre-programmed, you moron! It wouldn't exist otherwise. Though that's probably not the point of why you said it shows my ignorance on the matter.

Anywho, this is most intriguing, and I look forward to the rest of your answers.

[Death Dark]

A swing and a miss.

Here, let me continue.

3)  What do you think the goal of an SAI would be?  What would they want to do with their lives?

     The answer to this is best given by Mr. 35:  "an SAI's goals in 'life' would be just as varied as that of humans. Not all people want to do the same things with their lives, and I don't think all SAIs would want to do the same thing, either."  As previously mentioned, due to the particular implementation, there may seem to be a trend in the goals of SAI, but we can assume that ahead of time.

     This question and its responses also bring us into more interesting questions.  Mr. 35's answer begins with "assuming that you mean it was not pre-programmed."  This, amongst a number of the other answers, is a stark indication of a lack of understanding of artificial intelligence, though this one portrayed it in the most plainly spoken manner.  Ignorance of the topic is understandable, by all means, but it does not keep the false assumptions away.  EDIT:  in retrospect, Hobo's "it's goal would be whatever it was programmed to do" shows just as much ignorance, actually.  Also, Hobo, you were looking for the word "its."

     In nearly all cases, with some exception from simple game-playing algorithms, of artificial intelligence are built to where the creator has no control over the ultimate outcome of the system, which is the secret power of the discipline.  They may train it to strive accomplish a given goal, like knowing what blue is, but even that is simply influencing the system.  Granted, through training nearly every aspect of the AI could be altered via altering base information, such as its personality and emotion, but we can only train it so well (a certain tolerance level).  While an SAI may be trained to prefer certain goals, the unpredictability of sentient systems comes back into play.

     The last thing to mention here would be the "life" of an SAI.  Yes, SAI would have lives.  They would be mortal beings.  It would be understandable to look upon this answer with confusion, but let me ask you this:  when was the last time you saw any device containing a computer cease to function?

4)  How do you think an SAI would affect religion?

     This question has no right answer, for it's the reaction of a set of people to an idea.  The interesting part will be religious attempts as justifying some certain beliefs, such as that of a soul.  First, we, as humans, just stepped up to the level of God to create more beings that may one day surpass us.  This may be seen as treading where we don't belong, even though it is then the religious simply overreacting to the inborn power of humans.

     Second, if the SAI is human enough, there'd be no way to justify a soul.  Currently we can get away with it as being that thing that separates us from the animals, but what properties of us are given by this soul?  Maybe it just doesn't exist.  If it doesn't, then quite a number of afterlife and other religious concepts fall apart.

     I think that, like most things, the church will support the discrimination of SAI, just as they've done with women, blacks, homosexuals, and nearly everyone with a head on their shoulders.

[Hobro]

     All right, the time has come for the questions to be answered properly. 

But this is definitely a subjective subject.