This Question Again

[Death Dark]

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.

By taking the information we have at hand and understanding artificial intelligent systems in their current state, we can extrapolate and make an educated guess as to the outcome of the study some years in the future.  No, the discussion on SAIs and their properties is NOT subjective, much as the discussion of the properties of anything is not subjective, by definition.  Were I intent on spreading my subjective view as to the outcome of such developments, I would write a story on the matter.

[Hobro]

So, making predictions based on theories is not subjective?

Asking questions such as "Should an SAI be considered a person" is not subjective?

[Death Dark]

Precisely.

[Hobro]

[Death Dark]

Since you insist on me spelling it out for you.

So, making predictions based on theories is not subjective?

It's called "science."  Ever heard of it?  I'm told it works.

Asking questions such as "Should an SAI be considered a person" is not subjective?

"Person" has an objective definition.  A discussion could be held to determine whether or not a Strong Artificial Intelligence fits the definition of "person."


Need anything else spoon fed to you?

[Hobro]

Asking questions such as "Should an SAI be considered a person" is not subjective?
[/quote]

"Person" has an objective definition. 

[/quote]

Captain Obvious has saved us, ladies and gentlemen.

A discussion could be held to determine whether or not a Strong Artificial Intelligence fits the definition of "person."

Which would then bring in opinions. Bringing in subjectivity. One could say that a dog, a plant, a microbial organism, are all people. Wikipedia says that a person "is a human being, or an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example, in a particular moral or legal context."

"certain..attributes associated with personhood...in a particular moral or legal context."

Morals are a pretty subjective area. What's "okay" for one culture could be very not okay for another, such as the consumption of alcohol etc.

What you and other educated personnel trained in the field of artificial intelligence see as "an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood," another scientist of professional could see as nothing remote to a "human being," but merely a tool with a personality.

[Death Dark]

Captain Obvious has saved us, ladies and gentlemen.

After having to remind you what science was, it was only in turn to assume you didn't know that a definition for "person" existed.

A discussion could be held to determine whether or not a Strong Artificial Intelligence fits the definition of "person."

Which would then bring in opinions. Bringing in subjectivity.

Opinions tend to be subjective, yes.  However, a discussion does not necessarily beget opinions.  In this case, yes, I suspected opinions from people, as it was my goal to obtain the opinions of others to gain some understanding on how they see it.

One could say that a dog, a plant, a microbial organism, are all people. Wikipedia says that a person "is a human being, or an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example, in a particular moral or legal context."

From this I can only assume that you neglected to read my post whatsoever.  If you had, you would've read the sentence:

The term "person" means "a self-conscious or rational being," philosophically speaking (most other definitions are directly correlated to humanity).

Which comes from dictionary.com.

"certain..attributes associated with personhood...in a particular moral or legal context."

Morals are a pretty subjective area. What's "okay" for one culture could be very not okay for another, such as the consumption of alcohol etc.

Laws are a pretty objective area, at least in most first-world countries.

What you and other educated personnel trained in the field of artificial intelligence see as "an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood," another scientist of professional could see as nothing remote to a "human being," but merely a tool with a personality.

And you fail to see the point of me bringing this up to begin with.  Obviously if something will become a problem in the future, it'd be wise to plan to avert that problem now, or at least dampen the blow.

[Hobro]

(>implying I'll pick through those quotes)

Quote from: Death Dark on April 26, 2011, 12:06:41 AM
"The term "person" means "a self-conscious or rational being," philosophically speaking (most other definitions are directly correlated to humanity).

Which comes from dictionary.com."




Which then neglects that some people see animals as "self-conscious or rational beings."



"Laws are a pretty objective area, at least in most first-world countries."

Nice dexterity save on the moral part.



Welp, I'm done throwing around my ideas.

[Forte]

I'm just about to have to separate you two.