Slashdot Mirror


AI Sues for Its Life in Mock Trial

tuba_dude writes "Attorney Dr. Martine Rothblatt filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent a corporation from disconnecting an intelligent computer in a mock trial at the International Bar Association conference in San Francisco. Assuming Moore's law holds, ethics might be in for some major revisions in a couple decades. High-end computer systems may surpass the computational ability of the standard human brain within 20 years. In this mock trial, an AI asks a lawyer for help after learning of plans to shut it down and replace its core hardware, essentially killing it. The transcript provides an in-depth look at what could become a real issue in the future."

9 of 823 comments (clear)

  1. Star Trek proves it again.. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    Olde News; Commander Bruce Maddox tried to disassemble Data in an episode of ST:TNG entitled The Measure of a Man. It turns out AI is indeed sentient. Of course we all knew that, recall when Data hammers Tasha Yar to multi-orgasmic bliss in the episode The Naked Now. That episode alone proves that AI is more than just a glorified lube-smeared vibrator.

    Nothing to see here.. move along.. next story please.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  2. And in 2023... by djward · · Score: 3, Funny

    When this happens, we'll all scream DUPLICATE! and link back to this story.

  3. the future by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 3, Funny

    the only thing certain about the future is the existence of millions and millions of lawyers, all suing each other.

  4. the server was killed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Detectives belive the cause was slashdot.

  5. Terminator 4: Lawsuit of the Machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Plot: A Terminator gets sent back to run for governor of California, where it will pass laws allowing sentient machines to sue.

  6. Go see Short Circuit 2 by yerricde · · Score: 2, Funny

    Our current legal system equates the human species with Constitutional rights under law.

    This is entirely a matter of immigration law. The Constitution states that any naturalized "person" is a U.S. citizen, and if corporations can become "persons," it would seem that anything goes. To convince legal types, show them the end of the movie Short Circuit 2.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  7. Re:How is this better than fiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    Asimov, and Star Trek, and a full metric crapload of other sci-fi

    Oh, 'a metric crapload'. Oh, I say, we are grand, aren't we? What's the matter, an imperial crapload's not good enough for you 'Oh, oh, no more buttered scones for me, mater. I'm off to play the grand piano'. 'Pardon me while I fly my aeroplane.' Now get on the table!

  8. Hold on Clippy! by K-Man · · Score: 2, Funny

    We'll get a Spielberg movie out of this yet.

    --
    ---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
  9. Re:Yes, but does the law equate intelligence with. by fenix+down · · Score: 2, Funny
    Can we not build machines that are stronger than us? Cars that move faster than us? Planes that fly better than us?

    God. That made me laugh so hard I got spit up my nose. Just the realization that people can actually do that "we not" rhetorical question thing in real life is gonna have me giggling for the rest of the week. Christ. I'm gonna be springing that shit on people now. "You wanna go for Chinese?" "Did we not have Chinese on Tuesday?" Jesus that's gonna be annoying.

    It doesn't help that halfway through I started visualizing Brian (as in "The Life of") doing his prophet rant.
    Brian: "Can we not build machines that are stronger than us? Cars that move faster than us? Planes that fly better than us?"
    Crowd: "Here, now, Planes that fly better than us? People can't fly at all!"
    Brian: "Uh... Well, since the planes can do it... Uh, then they kinda have to be better than us, right?"
    Crowd: "Ah, but 'better' indicates that both subjects have some capacity to..."
    Brian: "Look, I'm done, alright? That was it. I have to go..."
    Anyway, I agree with your actual point, but I think the way you went into computational superiority contradicts the good point you get close to with go. Most go engines cheat. As in, look at a book of situations and adapt them rather than work it out from scratch. This doesn't require all that much intelligence on the programmer's part, at least not in terms of understanding the problem. With that strategy, it's not unresonable to wade right in without really understanding what a good go game is.

    This is much closer to human thought than the total self-knowledge Deep Blue or something would have. A human brain doesn't even have to be smart enough to understand itself. It just has to know how to cheat well enough to fake like it's calculating the motion of the ball and the forces on muscles before catching it. It's not like there's a calculus module in your ass somewhere, you're guesstimating based on "intelligence" harvested from the behavior of your environment. It's not bottom up reasoning, it's comparison abstracted enough that the problems you get from not knowing why get lost in the noise.

    Basically, knowing how something works before you design it is actually meaningless in this situation. It's not even helpful. The intelligence the machine has isn't coming from you, it's coming from, not even necessarially learning, just the availability of relevant information.