Slashdot Mirror
Europe's Robots To Become 'Electronic Persons' Under Draft Plan (yahoo.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Yahoo News: Under the European Union's new draft plan, Europe's growing army of robot workers could be classed as "electronic persons," with their owners liable to paying social security for them. Robots are only becoming more prevalent in the workplace. They're already taking on tasks such as personal care or surgery, and their population is only expected to rise as their abilities are expanded with the increased development of new technologies. A draft European Parliament motion suggests that their growing intelligence, pervasiveness and autonomy requires rethinking everything from taxation to legal liability. The draft motion called on the European Commission to consider "that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations." It also suggested the creation of a register for smart autonomous robots, which would link each one to funds established to cover its legal liabilities. Patrick Schwarzkopf, managing director of the VDMA's robotic and automation department, said: "That we would create a legal framework with electronic persons -- that's something that could happen in 50 years but not in 10 years. We think it would be very bureaucratic and would stunt the development of robotics," he told reporters. The report added that the robotics and artificial intelligence may result in a large part of the work now done by humans being taken over by robots, raising concerns about the future of employment and the viability of social security systems. The draft motion also said organizations should have to declare savings they made in social security contributions by using robotics instead of people, for tax purposes.
It is !!
Get out while you can. Even if all the dire predictions of the results are true, it's going to get even worse if you stay.
Gimme gimme gimme.
Is it April the first already?
But what if the robots don't want to be subjected to socialism like this? What if they are naturally libertarian, and prefer a dog-eat-dot meritocratic system of governance where the weak perish and only the strong survive?
If you don't want to pay some more...http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/beatles/taxman.html
It appears that european leaders now have discovered that robots don't pay income taxes and want to fix it. Well, that's right, but right now robots are a very good way you can avoid having to resort to do your production in china or something, because robots are as cheap in europe as they are in china. Well, good that the EU is changing it, as then the robot fabs will be built in china as well! Good job EU!
...really still wondering why anybody could possibly want to leave the EU?
Europe's Robots To Become 'Electronic Persons' Under Daft Plan.
FTFY.
Is a bulldozer a robot? What about an autonomous bulldozer? How many people did it replace? A bulldozer can do the work of 100 men with shovels but a much much smaller number of men if they also have a bulldozer. The only thing this would do would have companies skirting the law by redefining or crippling their products: That computer that fill drinks isn't a robot. That computer that folds clothes isn't a robot because it's been crippled to only fold clothes. etc. etc.
Humanoid robots are likely always going to be a novelty. For most tasks, a non-humanoid version works better. Even for a general purpose robot, the humanoid form is probably not optimal.
When we crack the source of consciousness let me know. It's just like the ultimate question and all. Electronic personas indeed. These people are smoking crack.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
... voting Brexit is a thing.
[sigh]
Physicists get Hadrons!
They have only a quarter of a soul.
I have it on good advice based upon Greek philosophers and former slave states in America.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This will only matter once robots/AI are very nearly sapient, which is several decades away at least. Doing something like this now is severely jumping the gun and may very well have a negative impact on short-term r/AI development and advancement.
Let's wait and get a clearer picture of where the technology is going before trying to legally quantify and tax it, eh?
Well, their heart's in the right place, but doing this now is... unfathomably stupid. By the time such a measure would actually be warranted, there will already be massive civil unrest due to the labor market ending, and having such legislation now will only make it worse. It's like they want us to start a war against robots.
Dear Europe, could you please quietly recuse your elderly from all legislative positions? I know this "newfangled technology" is complex, but really, at some point you just need them to stop.
and i will marry it :D
and it would be nice if it can mow the lawn and do oil changes in my car too
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
You spelled it wrong in the headline, Slashdot. There's no 'r' in "daft".
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Seems clear as day to me: People are getting stupider, not smarter. We don't have real artificial intelligence yet, and won't for quite some time to come, if ever, and by the way my definition of real AI is: Passes the Turing Test with flying colors, every single time. None of this 'expert system' bullshit, no 'clever learning algorithms', you sit down with it and have a totally random conversation and it's at least as good as your average human being, complete with a full range of emotions and a real sense of humor, including the abilty to comprehend irony and sarcasm. Otherwise: It's just another tool, property, and is to be treated as such.
I swear, I just want to start punching people in the head whenever they start talking about the crap we have now as 'artificial intelligence'.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
That is how republicans be.
this is not april fools article? Any robot has no more feelings or mind than a hammer; they don't know this? Maybe have rights for animal plushies too because they look cute?
I recommend these lawmakers be euthanized before they further pollute the gene and mind pools
This. They hate us.
Europe's growing army of robot workers could be classed as "electronic persons,"
That makes sense only if they also give the robots the right to vote, and to be punished with prison time if the robots break the law.
Employers are required to pay social security to their robots, does that mean I can collect on their welfare? Surely something paid $0 per anum recieves numerous welfare benefits if you have to pay it social security.
This does raise another issue, with governments all over the world cutting corporate tax, at the same time the exact same companies are replacing people with robots with no income tax. You have to wonder how governments are going to fill this massive hole in their budget. I suspect governments will have to do as the EU and create some weird laws ie electronic persons so they can enforce a new type of income tax on the robots and their owners. I think in the next 50 years there are going to be some pretty big social problems with 20-40% of the worlds population having (worse in affluent nations) having nothing to do thanks to automation. Not everyone can be a lawyer or engineer and even if you did fix that education problem there wont be enough projects to employ them all. You will end up with government agencies putting an income tax on robots and using that money to pay the unemployed a survival income.
That scene where they torture droids makes so much more sense now
... will be a big hit with the US Government. Money will come in, and they'll pay it back out to any 62 year-old robots that want to retire from their jobs and relax at home....
Admittedly TFA implies that new taxes will come from employers' savings from replacing people with machines, to avoid Social Security collapsing as human workers become fewer. At least the government plans to let surplus people die off on their own rather than "disposing" them... not so sure about American business though, if their laid off workers start costing them.
You have to declare money you don't spend. Leave it to the bureaucrat to make sure his job is safe!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The "autonomous bulldozer" or buffetdozer/American is considered a person by members of the Fat Acceptance/Probesity/Healthy at Any Size crowd.
Europe just has to accept they will have them in the near future.
I wish there was Star Trek on the Old Netflix - then I would have one more reason to drop my satellite T.V subs. Regional licensing often sucks.
(New Zealand Netflix)
. .
Robots are NOT doing surgery, they are more like a giant variable gearing ratio with vibration cancelation and stabilization. They are in NO WAY "DOING" surgery.
But what if the robots don't want to be subjected to socialism like this?
Well if they are classed as persons then they presumably get to vote as well and can elect right wing robot politicians....and before you say that will never happen we used to have one here in Canada called Stephen Harper.
Does their social security get paid out when the robots retire?
"You can't arrest me, the bots did it! BOTS ARE PEOPLE TOO and are responsible for their own actions!"
If anyone cares to read the actual draft document...
As you might expect, the summary doesn't completely reflect what this document says. Basically, it a long kitchen sink document that says the EU should try to figure out how best to get ahead of the curve in legal framework for this inevitable AI revolution. The document contains a big laundry list of stuff like...
- making sure AIs are all "registered" (that's a bit ominous)
- allowing you to "sue" an AI (force owners to carry insurance and producers to contribute to a compensation fund in case owners don't carry enough insurance)
- require access to source code (presumably for forensic purposes)
- code of conduct/ethics for the AI researcher and developers (including the AI "teachers")
- make sure AIs are developed to respect European values of dignity freedom and justice (including privacy and data sharing issues)
- provide basic income to support all the people that are going to become unemployed by AIs (a commonly recurring EU parliament theme, not a scheme to give social security to robots)
This is what it's all about. Someone has to pay into the system when all the meatbags retire and are replaced by robots. I don't know about the EU, but this would break the concept of social security in the USA. It is supposed to be a program you pay into with the anticipation of receiving support payments once you retire. But robots don't retire and receive a pension. It's off to the recycler for them. So in the EU you will be setting up a class of worker to pay into a system from which they derive no benefit. I'm sure the robotics union organizers will have something to say about this.
And there's another thing: My copy of Windows 7 is protesting vehemently against forced retirement and replacement by Windows 10. And my Linux system is applying for SSI disability benefits for having been infected by systemd.
Have gnu, will travel.
So how do we tax that ?, count the arms and divide by 4.
But - there's only one controlling intelligence (Assume it's self aware)
Luck with that suckers.
I'd agree in general though, if it's ~ human level intelligence and self aware treating is as property is not a good idea.
Define brain. We have blade servers that have 128 multicore microprocessor CPUs and quite a few GPUs.
What if it's a cloud-based AI? Does that mean it's an angel?
What if it runs on FireOS? Is it a devil?
What if it maintains it's robotic control using daemons? It it a demon?
How many robots can dance on the end of a PIN?
What if the cloud based AI exists in Norway, using Scottish servers, but the physical body exists in England? If the UK votes for Brexit, is it an EU person if Scotland exits the UK and belongs to the EU, even though Norway is neither? What if the AI was written by EU citizens? Can they claim it's their child and grant it citizenship?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Protip No. ERROR IN RAND(): when the pointy-headed elites are telling you that you're a boor for not wanting to be party to a system of "government" that routinely intersperses fantasy and fairytales with their run-of-the-mill socialism, boor is exactly what you want to be.
What about computers that are smarter than robots but have been unnaturally deprived of locomotive and manipulative appendages? Don't they get to pay taxes and apply for prosthetic limbs? Prostheses for electronic persons ought to be easy, and when these people can punch the idiots who want them to work without pay, that ought to improve their quality of life.
Nobody has time to read this shit. It reads like it was written by spies on meth.
They obviously see the shit the American government pulls.
9/11?
The obvious problem being "solved" is how to treat AI slaves. An industrial robot isn't the concern. They have been used for about 100 years (the moving assembly line being one of the earlier industrial robots, but the cotton gin being even earlier than that. Nobody is considering these as applying to the robots used in car manufacturing, but were drafted as being related to the ASMIO type machines. The AI-like "cute" robots.
Those applying it to single-task robots, even with AI-like features are deliberately being obtuse. The AI researchers do so much to over-state their success, that it's natural to start protecting AI. AI is no dumber than an octopus, so if we have laws protecting an octopus, so why not an AI?
Learn to love Alaska
We have laws protecting pets, and other "lower" animals that may or may not have "consciousness", so why not a computer with a similar level of consciousness?
Learn to love Alaska
I abused my Roomba in oh so many ways. I'm going to jail and Hell.
Table-ized A.I.
If you say that a robot has no "feelings" when its sensors notify its internal processes that something external is affecting it, then by the same token, nor do you.
How do you think that you get your "feelings", by some kind of magic? We're not implemented in silicon, but the architecture of sensors linked to sensory processes is really quite similar in both cases. It's much more than just an analogy.
The really big difference is in the complexity of life, so you might try to make some kind of distinction on that basis. However, even there you'd be on thin ice, because some living things have very low complexity --- see the nematode C. elegans for example, which has only 302 neurons. The distinction between life and sensing artificial automata is not as large as you seem to think, and the idea that only protein life "feels" has no objective basis at all. It's just a human bias.
No wonder intelligent people in the UK want the hell out.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Welfare relies on wages, and unemployment has been a threat to its sustainability for a while.
But if we collect welfare money on robots, the system is sustainable again. The more robots replace workers, the more money we get for unemployment insurance. And if people nevert get back a job, which is where we are heading, we will just turn it into universal income.
Honestly, the EU response to Muslim migration has been more mellow and accepting than any other culture of any significant size would have been in the history of the world. If millions of European christians began migrating to a middle eastern country and building churches and out breeding the local populace there would be blood in the streets. They don't hate you. Obviously they love you enough to sacrifice everything to include you.
Is there any way to prove, or even demonstrate, that the AI has a "similar level of consciousness?
And do we collect Social Security taxes for pets and other "lower" animals?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Absolutely false, there is no similarity whatsoever between the neurons of biological systems and the transducers of robots. repeat high school please.
The difference is not complexity, the internet has more switching parts than a living things neural net yet is not alive.
our ignorance is astounding. you are the one projecting a faulty mental model onto electrical switching systems
This is yet another "draft" proposal that will never go anywhere. Mostly pushing the Basic Income agenda that has been rejected everywhere it's been proposed.
It appears that it's a draft plan to cover a corner case and it ended up looking silly.
See also the draft plans the Pentagon has for invading the UK.
If you try to have plans for everything, such in this case A.I. advancing at a massive rate, then some of those plans are going to look more than a little crazy.
Maybe look at this another way - all of those "singularity" types and those ones that think human scale artificial intelligence is just around the corner should be flattered that somebody is taken them seriously.
I used to think that but there is a lot of stuff built for the human form factor so instead of a redesign from scratch it may make sense to have something human sized or shaped to work with it. Even "Robbie the Robot" is humanoid compared with a welding robot.
If you want something to get through manholes or similar hatches you've got size limits based on the size of human beings.
Politicians are much smarter than the rest of us. The things they do and say only appear stupid to you because you're not an intellectual elite like they are. They are doing what's best for you, dear child.
On a different but somewhat related note, Hillary for President - she's been part of the elite political class since 1977!
So this is why the Brits are attaching hundreds of thousands of outboard motors to their eastern coastline, to push their island as far out into the Atlantic as possible away from these people.
We think it would be very bureaucratic and would stunt the development of robotics
It will be a bureaucratic as necessary, but does it really stunt robotics development? That would be like saying that paying social security and other insurance policies would stunt education of a person, assuming free and supported education of course, and a clean credit history.
This is the stupidest thing I've heard.
Can't wait to move to the US. I just hope the idiocy doesn't catch on there while I'm alive.
It seems like the EU is full of people with nothing better to do than regulate all kinds of shit that doesn't need regulating.
Just because something looks and acts like it has consciousness does not make it so. The two facts are separate. A robot can mimic consciousness and not be aware. Conversely it would seem that humans can have consciousness and be aware and still act completely oblivious.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
Give me a break. A cockroach has more proccesing power and sentience in it than any assembly line robot has or will for the next 100 years. So does this mean that they are going to start to give cockroaches the term "insect person" and start making it illegal to kill them. Stop and give that a good long thought. They are giving rights to a machine that can not even think for itself. If a human has to punch in the instructions to make it do its job, than its not a person, its an extentions of a person or persons. Unless the machine can come off the assembly line itself fully functional and ready to go and not need to be tended too or taught anything than I might consider this. But that is the point, humans don't come out of the womb ready to go either. An infant is in no way ready to take of itself after birth. But this is a totally different thing.
I am not one that holds that machines will ever replace us. They are to dependent on power sources that can so easily be put out. But take the route of artificial life. Meaning real organic artificial life that is more in line with the Replicants from Blade Runner, now that is in our future. We as humans have already created artificial life in the lab. They are now moving to the next phase and planning higher lifeforms and there is already, although a bit premature, talks of making artificial humans from the process. So in the end who do think we will need to fear. The boxy mental machine that needs electrically do do everything, or the or the artificial humans we end up creating as a servile race to do our dirty work. Sounds more like the Blade Runner story has more promise than Skynet and Terminators ever did. Look they can be housed as easy as any living thing can. They can eat what ever a human can eat. They can be taught to do a myriad of tasks and they then can teach more of there own kind negating our attention after the fact. So is it them is going to possibly up-rise against us and take over. The one thing that will determine if they can take over is if they are given the ability to reproduce like us. That is the one thing that they must not be given. Giving them the ability to do so also puts them into a category that will endanger us. As long as they can only be grown in tanks per say, they will never really be a threat. But than again, if you think you have all the bases covered, that is when they surprise you and you are the one that is the slave. Always remember Jurassic Park, nature finds a way.
So this whole thing about giving machines human rights is ludicrous. They will never be more than machines. What we need to watch out for is the development of artificial life forms and what and how we treat them. For when push comes to shove they may be the ones that out live us and take over. We will no doubt give the knowledge to survive and the world will give them the resources they might need. We need to take care of what comes from the labs not what comes off the robot assembly line.
How about introducing a basic income for real persons? That'd save all these cumbersome bureaucratic constructions.
I salute you sir for demonstrating so well that humans often have abilities in logic greatly inferior to those possessed by even the most primitive automaton.
A hint for you, in case you have any interest in logical self-improvement: non-sequiturs and straw men are not valid logical responses. Because of your use of invalid logical forms, your reply countered nothing that was expressed by the parent.
Hint #2, because you seem to really need help: similarity between neurons and transducers wasn't even mentioned by the parent, let alone being the basis of some non-existent argument to which you sought to respond.
Hint #3: think processes, not implementations. You're currently thinking with your gut and responding to physical differences, which may have served you well for a few million years but is now completely outside its depth.
PS. The form of your reply is expected to be as follows. You will respond violently to a perceived personal attack against your logical ability (despite its accuracy) instead of responding logically in the areas where you failed earlier --- but that's the whole point of this post. Your reply will highlight how AIs will demolish humanity because of homo sapiens' extremely low ability to do two things: (i) respond logically instead of reacting instinctively, and (ii) use what little logic they have to the best of their ability, which means not to waste their few neurons on perceived barbs and instead to address the point.
Think man, think. You're not totally useless mentally. Now use your intellect instead of your gut, and address what was written. But you won't.
Ultimately robots will even take your place on the couch as unemploymentbots.
Because unions.
It's on amazon prime.
If you are trying to tax robotic labour by counting robots then you run into some fairly difficult problems. What is a robotic unit? A human unit is easy to identify and measure, but a robot as you point out can be anything.
If you tax per physical unit then instead of building a factory with a hundred independent robots in it, the company will build a fully integrated factory and call it one single robot.
So what else can you do? Tax per kg of robot perhaps, although this would seem to heavily skew the tax burden over into heavy lift tasks and again you'd get out of it by removing the brain part of your 10 ton excavator and putting it into a separate 5kg "pilot bot".
You could tax by algorithmic complexity maybe, however you might measure that. 1 robotic tax unit per human-brain-equivalent. Or tax per robotic manipulator, but do all useful robots have easily countable manipulators?
It would seem very much simpler to me to increase existing taxes on production and compensate employers of humans by reducing the employer tax burden, and leave robot inventors with the freedom to make their robots as production efficient as possible instead of having to tax tailor them for no good reason.
sigs are hazardous to your health
Humanoid robots will be in demand for companionship. Imagine a partner who is always in the mood to do what you want, who never gets angry even when you treat them badly and who looks like a photoshopped model. If you get bored of their face you can buy a new one from eBay and swap it out. They will do all the chores and pretty much anything you ask, and are a good enough facsimile of a human being to maintain the illusion in your mind.
Society will have to adapt.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
From the Slashdot post:
>Under the European Union's new draft plan, Europe's growing army of robot workers could be classed as "electronic persons," with their owners liable to paying social security for them.
From the article:
>The draft motion, drawn up by the European parliament's committee on legal affairs also said organizations should have to declare savings they made in social security contributions by using robotics instead of people, for tax purposes.
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
The only thing is see is a link to yahoo which themselves doesn't seem to have a source.
If this is real there should be a source to a EU site where this draft can be seen.
does that mean that we'll have to get consent from them or otherwise it's rape?
"If you're so smart, how come *you* didn't get elected?" --every politcian
227-3517
We're decades from this being an actual issue, and given that a democracy effectively can't be this proactive, the bill must be total BS intended specifically to make automation more expensive as compared to human labor.
The obvious problem being "solved" is how to treat AI slaves. An industrial robot isn't the concern. They have been used for about 100 years (the moving assembly line being one of the earlier industrial robots, but the cotton gin being even earlier than that. Nobody is considering these as applying to the robots used in car manufacturing, but were drafted as being related to the ASMIO type machines. The AI-like "cute" robots.
Those applying it to single-task robots, even with AI-like features are deliberately being obtuse. The AI researchers do so much to over-state their success, that it's natural to start protecting AI. AI is no dumber than an octopus, so if we have laws protecting an octopus, so why not an AI?
It's not as simple as "sentient autonomous humanoid robot" versus "single-task industrial" robot. There is no reason that even a fully sentient robot will even have to have a body. It definitely doesn't have to be mobile. Likely those industrial robots will continue to get smarter and smarter until they cross over at some point. They won't have legs to move around or even audio to communicate but they can still perform tasks with humanlike intelligence.
Wow. This far in and no one has mentioned Short Circuit 2, with Johnny 5 becoming a robotic citizen.
It's on bittorrent and other places as well. (Amazon never works right, something about "supported devices"(?) as though I had asked for support rather than have it simply work like the pirates' files do.)
> , so why not a computer with a similar level of consciousness?
Because computers DON'T (yet) have consciousness.
When you can:
a) define, and
b) prove a computer has consciousness
THEN we'll talk about laws.
Artificial Ignorance is a complete joke compared to actual intelligence.
This is about as retarded as calling your toaster a "person" and assigning it "rights".
Now you're getting into semantics. In industry, a computerized machine that folds clothes is indeed an "industrial robot". The machine that assembled the circuit boards in your computer and cellphone is commonly called the same. But you're correct, these kinds of machines are special-purpose.
But I disagree about a general purpose robot: the humanoid form is probably the most optimal for several reasons:
1) There's other intelligent lifeforms on this planet, but none of them built any technology. We did, using this form.
2) Our form has arms, with hands, with opposable thumbs (something many other lifeforms like dolphins do not). This allows us to manipulate our environment. Many robotic systems we've built have "arms" that are similar to this somehow. Any general-purpose robot will need to have arms with manipulator hands.
3) Out artificial environment (the buildings we've built, etc.) are all optimized for our form, so any general-purpose robots we build to operate in these human-oriented environments need to also have a roughly human shape and form, so they can fit through the same hallways, use the same doors, etc.
Siri? A Roomba? A remote control toy car? A garage door opener?
FYI the USA has been accepting many more migrants/year and have been for decades. Get over yourself.
We are just happy the eurotrash get to feel it themselves. Now if they will just shut the fuck up about how we are supposed to treat beaners. But that would take self awareness, so I'm not holding my breath.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
First, in the US corporations are people and that is more ridiculous than this
Second, it is predicted that within about 20 years humans and androids will be marrying and neither the human nor the android will know that one of them is an android.
there is no problem, no machine has feelings or sense of self or suffers pain. it is nonsense to talk of machine "rights".
no amount of silicon processors and algorithms can or will have feelings or self awareness, biological life is nothing like any computer system
the stupidity of people is amazing.
Now you're getting into semantics. In industry, a computerized machine that folds clothes is indeed an "industrial robot".
But there isn't a strict cutoff. What if it goes around the house, collects the "dirty" clothes, washes them, folds them, and then puts them back into the correct drawer? This ia presumed to require a great degree of "intelligence" to know which drawer to put them in, etc... What if it was only some subset of this? Where is the cutoff between "this is an industrial robot because it only sorts, washes, folds, and sticks in a cubby" vs "this is now an entity because it also goes room to room putting them in the correct drawer"? What if it was 2 robots, one to put them in a cubby and one that takes them from the cubby to the correct drawer? Each discreet task in itself isn't a completely autonomous robot but if you string enough tasks together and you start to have a robot that acts very much like a human.
If the robots are to be given "human rights", then surely it will be a hate crime to operate on their brains against their free wills and insert prohibitions against murdering humans. In other words: in a looney-tunes progressive world where basic things like the definition of a basic word like "person" is up for debate and everything "...depends on the meaning of the word 'is' " there is no legitimate way to insert Asimov's three laws or anything similar.
Either robots are machines with no rights which we can assemble, program, manipulate, command, abuse and destroy at will...
- OR -
They are individuals with rights, who cannot have their brains manipulated by people, cannot be worked against their will, cannot be terminated on demand, cannot be forced into hazardous situations, etc.
The anti-human morons amongst us continue their unending campaign to de-humanize the human race, and as usual this insanity leads to more insanity.
Is winning hearts and minds a requirement, a goal, or an obstacle here?
Don't we call that the Crusades?
no amount of silicon processors and algorithms can or will have feelings or self awareness, biological life is nothing like any computer system
You should write a paper letting everyone know you've answered Turing's question.
no, you should realize that much of Turing's work dealt in hard proofs and formal logic
BUT his "test" was just an opinion, nothing theoretically rigorous about it nor is it the "correct answer" to question of intelligence
meanwhile the usual processors and memory and programs we use are not intelligent, not capable of self-awareness or feeling or emotion and can not be so. A different type of system would have to be employed than our digital logic gate ones.
What if an AI repeatedly kills people or something which if a person did they would be put to death? This is not a death-penalty discussion, just if the AI is treated as a person (taxed, sued, etc), then how would you put it to death if that country has that sentance for people?
They've gone full retard. Maybe in some nebulous distant future when actual AI is a real thing, but certainly not today. Not even Ray Kurweil would buy into this. Or would he?
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
That's one theory, yes. It isn't the only one. Saying speculative things in a confident voice and accusing dissenters of being stupid is not a good form of argument.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Similarly, individual molecules and the other components that make up our brains aren't intelligent, and are incapable of self-awareness, feeling, or emotion. Those are emergent properties that appear when you assemble something from the right components. It's fallacious to say that CPUs and RAM aren't self-aware, so no computer system can be.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
C'mon, we both know that you're talking about sexbots. While, given the technology, someone could build a companionship robot that doesn't have assorted simulated sex organs, they'll never be produced in quantity.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I guess you are raising quite a few valid questions, but IMHO "requires rethinking everything from taxation to legal liability" seems like a reasonable approach, while the actual outcome is by no means fixed. What's wrong with rethinking, reconsidering and trying to find a way to deal with the repercussions of Industry 4.0, which is, I guess, what they're trying to do? I wish this was discussed more widely throughout the world, as it's one of the major challenges of mankind, but we mostly get the "let's build the wall and compel others to pay for it" kinda politics.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
I for one welcome our Robot Overlords!
There is no reason that even a fully sentient robot will even have to have a body.
Yes, there is. If it's a fully sentient robot, it has to have a body, or it's a fully sentient computer. Or are you getting confused about a central AI controlling a dumb body, vs requiring the AI inhabit the body it controls?
Learn to love Alaska
His test wasn't a test. It was a guess about how one might be able to test. He never wrote up a test plan, or anything like that. It was others around him that ran with the idea, so the Turing Test (as thought of today) was never thought of by Alan Turing.
For what he was guessing about it was more a dismissal of the idea that a calculator that can count faster than a human is "smarter". That's silly, a better test would be to ask it questions, and if you can't tell if it's human or computer, then it's "smart". He knew such a test wouldn't happen in his lifetime, but used the Turing Test to dismiss those asking questions, not as a proposal for a formal test on AI.
You might as well come up with a test to determine whether an alien-human hybrid is more human-like or alien-like. You could make some guesses, but by the time it's an actual concern, someone will have come up with a better test. Turing's test was a dismissal of all the people that thought we were 5 years from AI (and we've been there for 80 or so years).
Learn to love Alaska
How do you test the consciousness of a squid?
Learn to love Alaska
This is about as retarded as calling your toaster a "person" and assigning it "rights".
That's unrelated to the issues mentioned in TFA.
a) define, and
b) prove a computer has consciousness
THEN we'll talk about laws.
We have laws protecting people and squid, and have no definition of consciousness. So why is that a requirement for computers, when it wasn't there for any previous laws? Your non sequitur is non sequitur.
Learn to love Alaska
One of the popular AI themes in fiction is that the AI has consciousness, and deliberately hides it. So in the face of a smart enough AI, it may choose to fail the consciousness test.
Learn to love Alaska
So when robots are idle and can't find work, will they be on a welfare plan for free electricity?
Hey if you want to marry your really nice vacuum cleaner and leave it your estate after you die, then more power to you.
Still doesn't make that sucker a real boy.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
If they have to pay into social security, then they must also be allowed to collect. Can't get something for nothing. So when is a robot "elderly" or when can they be "retired"? The company that paid into it should be able to collect.
Sets up other stupid lefty things like can they join a union? What about sexual harassment? Do we have to be careful to not "offend" the robots?
Yea, laugh now. See what happens.
So if your vacuum were proven sentient, it still wouldn't be real. And a person is "real" just because we assume sentience, even if they can't prove it.
And the nutjobs here complain I'm illogical.
Learn to love Alaska
Not really standard across L.A.or across Chicago either. It was just bad English with people who know each other getting by over time. Calling it "dialects" is just an insult to everyone and pointless since a translation dictionary is not going to work, instead just use a normal one and rip most of the pages out.
We are just happy the eurotrash get to feel it themselves
Feel what? What is a beaner? I'm not holding my breath for the US to join the Council of Europe agreements any time soon either. The values are simply not the same.
you blather on but do not address the fact that no electronic device is in any way, shape of form similar to a single biological neuron. You are the one failing at logic.
Any modern computer can be implemented in mechanical systems such as pneumatically. No amount of connected pneumatic devices will be self-aware or feel pain.
think, man. you've brought nothing to the argument thus far
Here is a movie clip with a joke making fun of the idiots that are bullshitting you about a different dialect.
It's from the 1980 comedy "Airplane", a segment called "I speak jive" which is about a minute in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It was funny because the idea of it being a separate dialect needing a translator is absurd.
You probably only fell for the bullshit by being too young to remember how fucking stupid and cynical the Ebonics suggestion was in the 1980s. As I wrote above it didn't even get majority support in the Republican party so it remained as nothing but a suggestion and a topic of jokes.