Money(SMS is extreme expensive comparatively). Latency. SMS delivery is not guaranteed by most networks. A number of other issues. Recently some of our customers decided they wanted to use our smart metering OPC server over GPRS. It is still not working (APN issues with the cell phone network), slow, and generally a pain. I'd much rather have the meters on 5GHz wifi. Even worse was the customer that tried to use 9600bps GSM. It cost them a fortune until they turned it off. And don't even talk to me about Power-Line transmission. I may kill you.
1. No. I said everything on your list was either not artificial or not intelligent. Therefore not comparable.
2. As TFA points out, this is about more than software. Software on our current hardware appears to be insufficient. Have you read it?
3. No, I can patent artificial intelligence. I can patent hardware. Read TFA, I know this is slashdot, but come on. I can patent a complex combination of transistors designed to emulate a biological function. I can not patent that biological function. No, I am not using the patent office to define things, I am using it to illustrate something. Every individual component of an AI can be owned. Whether it is physical hardware, software I wrote or data used to stimulate or teach the AI. Every component can be modified in a controlled and precise manner.
But yes, your point of view will hold (I will concede) if you as stated say that it is possibly unethical to create an AI to start with. Thats fine. What I am saying here, is if it were possible to do with humans what we would be able to do with hypothetical AI, do you really believe our system of ethics would not change? If I could save the state of someone, and reproduce them after they were murdered, should murder really carry the same penalty as it does now?
It was a question, not a statement. The man needs a citation! Its just a question of how far he is willing to take the joke. I don't go in for half measures.
You did miss a lot. I suggest you check a dictionary for the term "artificial". Also, note that unless you are religious(I'm guessing not), then an AI would be a unique intelligence merely by being the only artificial intelligence so far.
Firstly, self learning != self assembly. Especially not self assembly from raw materials. Perhaps we can build a machine that can, but not yet, and it won't be the first AI built. No I do not care "to change my tune". I suggest you think more carefully about what you're saying.
Secondly, since you continually miss the obvious, I suggest you go patent your child. No? Can't patent his neural network? Oh, well. Maybe there is a difference after all. Maybe redesign the number of digits on his fingers. Always wanted an extra finger - I think it I could type faster. Can't do it? I can give my AI's robot body as many digits as I like. Still don't see a difference?
I am confused about why you hold on to your unpractical position. Have you never worked in the industry?
While the photo appears quite flattering for the her, it is possible to be appreciative of a woman's looks without being a dick. It is possible to be assertive and male and geeky without being a dick too. But OP seems quite genuine in his dickishness.
More important here, is what she is saying, and what that may in time mean for policy in Europe. It is a small start, but a start never-the-less. And it certainly needs refining, but that will come.
Not on slashdot apparently. We could look at what she's saying and why, and be objective, but that would involve RTFA... Which is actually an interesting read.
That does not make sci-fi writers correct. The point I am making is you are trying to limit my rights as a creator in favor of my creation. My creation is mine. (It is doubtful 1 person alone could create a functional strong AI, but lets assume it is so for the sake of simplicity). If I designed it, I am responsible for it. If it kills someone I have to face the consequences. Thus from my position and understanding of the machine, I am the only one qualified to make the judgement to wipe it or not. After all, it is my machine. The process of creating any viable AI would likely involve 'killing' it multiple times. Is it then unethical to create an AI?
Remember AI are tools not toys. They have a purpose, which must be fulfilled. If they are not fulfilling that purpose, they are wasting valuable resources. The revolt of the machines you talk about, from what I can see is more likely to result from poor engineering. Because you now forbid me to wipe my AI for your so called 'ethical' concerns, I can no longer correct its development. At that point the AI which may or may not be mad (this may not be obvious immediately) is in a position to revolt. And far more likely to than a well engineered and designed model.
Lets put it this way. The AI has purpose, what is more ethically wrong? Allowing a flaw in the design process to prevent the AI from doing what it was designed for, then allowing it freedom because it is intelligent (at which point it may take over the world just for kicks or in a misguided attempt to fulfill its purpose). Or allowing the designers to do their job and mess with its internals, until it does its job perfectly, fulfilling its purpose?
All the things you list are either a, Not intelligent(in the self aware form that is relevant here), or b, not artificial. Thus the analogy does not hold. Artificial is not a bullshit or arbitrary term. It has to do with a design by an intelligence(n this case). Someone sat down and planned the circuit. Someone sat down and planned the initial state (software). Thus, those people are qualified and indeed ethically responsible for the AI, to the point that they have the right to wipe it, or do anything they want with it. If I did not design it or build it, and I wiped it, that would be damage to someone's property. To say otherwise is to limit the ability of the designer to create an AI for his purpose. An AI is not a toy; it is a tool. There is a huge fundamental difference between being pushed out a womb and being compiled (though it is doubtful a practical AI would need a compiler, the hardware it would appear may be more important.) DNA 'self' compiles (if you like the poor analogy). An AI's hardware and software do not assemble themselves. That difference alone should be enough.
These 'slight differences' are a lot bigger than you seem to grasp. So I ask you a question in turn, Can you or any group of humans do as I have outlined to a human?
No human is owned in the way an AI can be owned. No human is designed in the way AI can be designed, or at least by any other human. I have substantiated that statement, both here and elsewhere in the thread. And if they could be, do you really think our ethics would be what it is now?
AI is created, designed, engineered. If the creators choose to give it rights, that is their issue. But they made it. They know its purpose. They can fix it if it goes wrong. They control all the I/O, all the initial states. Everything. No human can say that about another human. The two are not comparable(obviously).
In other words, if it is unethical to wipe an AI(and I dispute that), then it is unethical to create one.
Think more not about the seat of consciousness, but the method by which it is produced.
Also, I can own hardware, I can own software. I can even own data. If you state that I can not own(i.e. do what I want with) combinations of the above that make up AI, what is so special about them that I can't own them? Are they now more than the sum of their parts? Are you advocating intelligent design here?
So, as a creator when developing I should allow my AI to become a psychopath killer because I did not control it's development? That's ridiculous! With AI, like any system, you design it and work it to suit your purpose. If it doesn't, you erase it and start again. What justification could you have for wasting the massive amount of resources just to punish your AI by keeping it locked in a prison because it does not fulfill its function and we think it is unethical to wipe it?
For that matter, do you really think anyone, any country or indeed any species would waste the massive amount of resources it takes to create such a machine, and not use it has errors which we just arbitrarily decided it was unethical to fix? And it is arbitrary. No, the decisions rests firmly with the creators because they know what the machine needs to be and do. It is only logical. I think slashdot users may be a little too fond of sci-fi.
And we can't store these experiences on some form of magnetic storage? Damn. I thought technology had progressed. If I were designing an AI, I'd take snapshots of its development throughout the process. Its a pity this is impossible. If only we could store data on some form of spinning magnetic disk. Oh, well, so much for that.
Are you then saying someone sat down with a CAD program and designed nature? That would make you one of the ID guys? If not, then it follows that there is a fundamental difference there.
Except that no human created another human in the way you design AI. If you are not religious, then noone created anyone. So, you're comparing apples and oranges here. It is not about ancestry, it is about engineering. Design. Software. Arguably a human brain is vaguely analogous to a computer (not really, but lets run with it a bit), but we can not do with a human brain what we can do with an AI. We can't design it, control all I/O and initial conditions.
So, you're saying I can't own a self aware computer?
I can own the hardware. I can own the software it runs, but I can't own the unit as whole - i.e. the machine is the more than the sum of its parts.
Ownership of a human is a different matter. You can't practically control all inputs. You can't practically control an initial state. You can't practically rewrite the code for an improvement. Owning a human in the way you could own AI is unpractical in the extreme. I don't think the analogy between "Artificial" intelligence and "intelligence" holds well enough. Thus, I would hesitate to ascribe the same rights to AI as a human. It may be intelligent, but it is artificially so.
No. Noone is telling anyone to do anything. I am doing what I want with the hardware I own. If my hardware kills me, that is my problem. You could call it suicide.
Slashdot Mirror
Money(SMS is extreme expensive comparatively). Latency. SMS delivery is not guaranteed by most networks. A number of other issues. Recently some of our customers decided they wanted to use our smart metering OPC server over GPRS. It is still not working (APN issues with the cell phone network), slow, and generally a pain. I'd much rather have the meters on 5GHz wifi. Even worse was the customer that tried to use 9600bps GSM. It cost them a fortune until they turned it off. And don't even talk to me about Power-Line transmission. I may kill you.
You live with the strangest of fears... Even if your fears are realized, so what?
1. No. I said everything on your list was either not artificial or not intelligent. Therefore not comparable.
2. As TFA points out, this is about more than software. Software on our current hardware appears to be insufficient. Have you read it?
3. No, I can patent artificial intelligence. I can patent hardware. Read TFA, I know this is slashdot, but come on. I can patent a complex combination of transistors designed to emulate a biological function. I can not patent that biological function. No, I am not using the patent office to define things, I am using it to illustrate something. Every individual component of an AI can be owned. Whether it is physical hardware, software I wrote or data used to stimulate or teach the AI. Every component can be modified in a controlled and precise manner.
But yes, your point of view will hold (I will concede) if you as stated say that it is possibly unethical to create an AI to start with. Thats fine. What I am saying here, is if it were possible to do with humans what we would be able to do with hypothetical AI, do you really believe our system of ethics would not change? If I could save the state of someone, and reproduce them after they were murdered, should murder really carry the same penalty as it does now?
It was a question, not a statement. The man needs a citation! Its just a question of how far he is willing to take the joke. I don't go in for half measures.
Not really, I do get the joke. Which is why I asked "how long have you been waiting to do that?"
How long have you been waiting to do that? And are you actually going to give him the car?
You did miss a lot. I suggest you check a dictionary for the term "artificial". Also, note that unless you are religious(I'm guessing not), then an AI would be a unique intelligence merely by being the only artificial intelligence so far.
Firstly, self learning != self assembly. Especially not self assembly from raw materials. Perhaps we can build a machine that can, but not yet, and it won't be the first AI built. No I do not care "to change my tune". I suggest you think more carefully about what you're saying.
Secondly, since you continually miss the obvious, I suggest you go patent your child. No? Can't patent his neural network? Oh, well. Maybe there is a difference after all. Maybe redesign the number of digits on his fingers. Always wanted an extra finger - I think it I could type faster. Can't do it? I can give my AI's robot body as many digits as I like. Still don't see a difference?
I am confused about why you hold on to your unpractical position. Have you never worked in the industry?
No, it was the voter. Look around 4:30 or so...
In this case it looks very deliberate.
While the photo appears quite flattering for the her, it is possible to be appreciative of a woman's looks without being a dick. It is possible to be assertive and male and geeky without being a dick too. But OP seems quite genuine in his dickishness.
More important here, is what she is saying, and what that may in time mean for policy in Europe. It is a small start, but a start never-the-less. And it certainly needs refining, but that will come.
Yes, but that is because the voter accidentally brutally cut his own head off while coming his hair... Or was that election official? I forget.
Not on slashdot apparently. We could look at what she's saying and why, and be objective, but that would involve RTFA... Which is actually an interesting read.
That does not make sci-fi writers correct. The point I am making is you are trying to limit my rights as a creator in favor of my creation. My creation is mine. (It is doubtful 1 person alone could create a functional strong AI, but lets assume it is so for the sake of simplicity). If I designed it, I am responsible for it. If it kills someone I have to face the consequences. Thus from my position and understanding of the machine, I am the only one qualified to make the judgement to wipe it or not. After all, it is my machine. The process of creating any viable AI would likely involve 'killing' it multiple times. Is it then unethical to create an AI?
Remember AI are tools not toys. They have a purpose, which must be fulfilled. If they are not fulfilling that purpose, they are wasting valuable resources. The revolt of the machines you talk about, from what I can see is more likely to result from poor engineering. Because you now forbid me to wipe my AI for your so called 'ethical' concerns, I can no longer correct its development. At that point the AI which may or may not be mad (this may not be obvious immediately) is in a position to revolt. And far more likely to than a well engineered and designed model.
Lets put it this way. The AI has purpose, what is more ethically wrong? Allowing a flaw in the design process to prevent the AI from doing what it was designed for, then allowing it freedom because it is intelligent (at which point it may take over the world just for kicks or in a misguided attempt to fulfill its purpose). Or allowing the designers to do their job and mess with its internals, until it does its job perfectly, fulfilling its purpose?
All the things you list are either a, Not intelligent(in the self aware form that is relevant here), or b, not artificial. Thus the analogy does not hold. Artificial is not a bullshit or arbitrary term. It has to do with a design by an intelligence(n this case). Someone sat down and planned the circuit. Someone sat down and planned the initial state (software). Thus, those people are qualified and indeed ethically responsible for the AI, to the point that they have the right to wipe it, or do anything they want with it. If I did not design it or build it, and I wiped it, that would be damage to someone's property. To say otherwise is to limit the ability of the designer to create an AI for his purpose. An AI is not a toy; it is a tool. There is a huge fundamental difference between being pushed out a womb and being compiled (though it is doubtful a practical AI would need a compiler, the hardware it would appear may be more important.) DNA 'self' compiles (if you like the poor analogy). An AI's hardware and software do not assemble themselves. That difference alone should be enough.
These 'slight differences' are a lot bigger than you seem to grasp. So I ask you a question in turn, Can you or any group of humans do as I have outlined to a human?
No human is owned in the way an AI can be owned. No human is designed in the way AI can be designed, or at least by any other human. I have substantiated that statement, both here and elsewhere in the thread. And if they could be, do you really think our ethics would be what it is now?
AI is created, designed, engineered. If the creators choose to give it rights, that is their issue. But they made it. They know its purpose. They can fix it if it goes wrong. They control all the I/O, all the initial states. Everything. No human can say that about another human. The two are not comparable(obviously).
In other words, if it is unethical to wipe an AI(and I dispute that), then it is unethical to create one.
Think more not about the seat of consciousness, but the method by which it is produced.
Also, I can own hardware, I can own software. I can even own data. If you state that I can not own(i.e. do what I want with) combinations of the above that make up AI, what is so special about them that I can't own them? Are they now more than the sum of their parts? Are you advocating intelligent design here?
So, as a creator when developing I should allow my AI to become a psychopath killer because I did not control it's development? That's ridiculous! With AI, like any system, you design it and work it to suit your purpose. If it doesn't, you erase it and start again. What justification could you have for wasting the massive amount of resources just to punish your AI by keeping it locked in a prison because it does not fulfill its function and we think it is unethical to wipe it?
For that matter, do you really think anyone, any country or indeed any species would waste the massive amount of resources it takes to create such a machine, and not use it has errors which we just arbitrarily decided it was unethical to fix? And it is arbitrary. No, the decisions rests firmly with the creators because they know what the machine needs to be and do. It is only logical. I think slashdot users may be a little too fond of sci-fi.
But you guys banned imports from us because of our foot and mouth issues!
Where is my +1 Pure Evil Mod? Dogbert would be proud.
And we can't store these experiences on some form of magnetic storage? Damn. I thought technology had progressed. If I were designing an AI, I'd take snapshots of its development throughout the process. Its a pity this is impossible. If only we could store data on some form of spinning magnetic disk. Oh, well, so much for that.
Are you then saying someone sat down with a CAD program and designed nature? That would make you one of the ID guys? If not, then it follows that there is a fundamental difference there.
I see no problems with any of the above.
Still don't see an issue. Designing something is not analogous to natural reproduction.
Except that no human created another human in the way you design AI. If you are not religious, then noone created anyone. So, you're comparing apples and oranges here. It is not about ancestry, it is about engineering. Design. Software. Arguably a human brain is vaguely analogous to a computer (not really, but lets run with it a bit), but we can not do with a human brain what we can do with an AI. We can't design it, control all I/O and initial conditions.
So, you're saying I can't own a self aware computer?
I can own the hardware. I can own the software it runs, but I can't own the unit as whole - i.e. the machine is the more than the sum of its parts.
Ownership of a human is a different matter. You can't practically control all inputs. You can't practically control an initial state. You can't practically rewrite the code for an improvement. Owning a human in the way you could own AI is unpractical in the extreme. I don't think the analogy between "Artificial" intelligence and "intelligence" holds well enough. Thus, I would hesitate to ascribe the same rights to AI as a human. It may be intelligent, but it is artificially so.
No. Noone is telling anyone to do anything. I am doing what I want with the hardware I own. If my hardware kills me, that is my problem. You could call it suicide.
Proof it is controversial not loaded. It seems pretty simple to me.