$5/month for 4 years is $240. Cedega costs more than Windows. Also, by looking at their games database, it seems there is only 7 games that work perfectly. Sorry, but Cedega is WAY overpriced.
You're right, but I will not believe someone who says that Shrek is the worst movie he ever saw. He may not like it, but the worst movie ever ? Give me a break ! It was a troll.
So let's see... I can go to my friend's place and listen to his CDs. That's legal, right ? And what if I'm not at my friend's place, but he puts the telephone near the speaker so I can hear ? Is it legal or is it a crime ? And what if we use something like skype instead of a telephone ? Is is legal ? And what if put his CD in his computer, and then make skype record every sound from his computer (instead of only his computer's microphone) so I can hear the CD ? Is it legal ? And what if, instead of skype, he use a streaming program ? Is it legal ? I mean the only difference is the transfer protocol, right ? And what if, instead of a stream, he send the file with ftp ? Is it legal ? And what if we use a p2p program to transfer the file ? Is it legal ? And what if I don't know the guy that well ? Is it legal ?
Obviously we don't have the same source of information (or one of us is partial).
Most of the Shi'ite leaders in Iraq have said that they do not want a theocracy dominated Islamic Republic like the one in Iran.
And we all know that someone who wants to get elected always tell exactly what he thinks. 15 years ago the Iraqi people would have been able to know that. They were the most educated people of the region. But after so many years of sanctions, I'm pretty sure a lot of them will listen to the most demagogic leader.
And if the minority who wants an fundamentalist state do not get elected, they will blame the US for it. They will say the election was a sham and it will end up with a civil war or, at least, with terrorist attacks for several years. Which means US troops will have to stay, which means more hatred towards Americans.
I dont recall Islamic people attacking the United States because we let them control their government.
The problem is Bush has no intention of letting them control their government. That's why there was no election in Iraq up to now and that's why a constitution need to be created BEFORE any election. One of the goal of the war in Iraq was to take control of the region, not to let the Iraqi people control their government.
So what you're saying is you would rather have a leader that attacks his nieghbors and commits genocide on his own people, that risk having a religious man at the helm of a country?
I don't give a damn about Koweit (they were stealing oil from Iraq anyway) and even less about the Kurds (you know the ones that are also persecuted by the Turkish government). So please, cut the propaganda crap.
As for a religious man at the helm of a country... They are not only religious, they are fundamentalists. And, after all these years of frustration, they are fundamentalists with a vengeance. They will want the US out of Iraq, and they will want no part of any kind of american culture or influence in their nice religious country.
A tremendous victory? Why? Do you think Iraqi resistance will stop because of this?
But what I don't understand is why so many people know so little about Iraq. If there is a democracy in Iraq the ones who will be elected will be shiites leader... And the first thing they will do is transform Iraq into an islamic state like Iran.
The really funny part is that Saddam was fighting those shiites leader. For our safety, it would have been better to keep Saddam or at least keep the old regime.
I'm a computer consultant and I see a lot of bugs with MS Office too. Of course when Word screw up a document it's the computer's fault, not MS Office...
Also when you use OpenOffice DON'T save in the Microsoft file format. The filters are not perfect and sooner or later, you'll lose your formatting. Oh, and before you start complaining, MS Office filters are far worse than the ones in OpenOffice : last week I had to save several.doc to.rtf... Word was screwing up big time so I used OpenOffice in order to open the.doc and save them as.rtf (checked the documents back into Word and they were ok).
Copyright infringement isn't theft, since it doesn't deprive someone else of anything.
Yes, it does deprive them of control. In a world where there is no copyright infringement, the copyright holder has total control on who can watch/ear/learn the copyrighted material. When someone "illegally" (notice the quotation marks) use an intellectual "property" the copyright holder lose this control. So yes, it is "stealing"... Now the question is : is it ok to steal one's own freedom?
I know what Flash is, thank you. But AFAIK most "software developers" (?) use it to make some nice animations for web pages. This means that Flash is popular because the flash player is everywhere... and the flash player is everywhere because it's really easy to install with Internet Explore (just click "yes", wait 5 seconds and you're done). To kill Flash the only thing Microsoft would have to do is pre-install an alternative and force people to download the flash player on their own.
Also you can't compare Macromedia with AOL not Apple.
Why use Kylix when Ada is available?
on
Kylix in Limbo
·
· Score: 1
I never liked C so (in the 80's) I used Turbo Pascal. When I saw C++ I thought it was even worse than C so I used Delphi. When Kylix went out I thought of buying it but I then discovered Ada... I never bought Kylix nor used Delphi again. Am I the only one?
And what about Internet Explorer, MSN Messenger and Windows Media Player? True, ICQ and Real Player are not dead... for now.
Photoshop, Dreamweaver and Premiere are specialized tools used only by a few people. Flash is a "standard". Of course installing flash is easy (just have to click "yes")... for now...
Before Iraq most people saw the USA as a leader. Now most people see the USA only as a selfish bully. Invading Iraq was a very stupid decision. The problem with Saddam Hussein was he overestimated Bush.
There's a difference between killing innocent people to force an enemy to surrender without condition and ending a war. The Japanese wanted to end the war months before Hiroshima.
we're not talking about something that requires an immediate decision [...] I'm suggesting a well thought out approach that accounts for reality, not anthropomorphic appearance.
Ok, since you obviously take everything I write to the first degree I'll try to be more explicit. If one day, unexpectedly, a robot came to me and asked for his freedom you can be sure I would think a lot before doing anything. In fact, I would be very skeptical about its ability to think and to have feelings. But I love to play games and I love hypothetical situations no matter how absurd they are. Why? Because I think it's a good way to know and understand myself (which I think is desirable). So from the beginning I assumed that the game was I had to take a decision NOW, based on what I know NOW.
[I have to do some anthropomorphism] Which, of course, is only valid if this thing is truly human-like.
Anthropomorphism means: "the attribution of human form or behavior to a deity, animal, etc". Maybe it's because I rarely speak english but to me it means that anthropomorphism only applies to things which are not human-like. I agree anthropomorphism is a dangerous thing but this does not mean that it is always wrong. I believe my cat has the same basic feelings (fear, happiness, frustration...) as I do. It is clearly anthropomorpism but it seems experiments made on both humans and other animals show that in this case anthropomorphism was justified. I guess you will say that a cat is a living being with a brain and is not a robot so the analogy don't apply. Well, this analogy is not to say that a robot can have feelings but only that sometimes anthropomorphism is valid, nothing more.
I believe it won't, it never will, and that it remains simply a machine that at most will have the appearance of life, not true life.
It all depend on what "true life" really is. I agree it won't be "biological life" (I will leave biological computer out of this) but, even though I'm the arrogant bastard here, I won't go as far as to say that no other kind of "life" is possible. The only thing I can say is I don't know (it all depends on the definition of the word "life") and, until you show me a good logical reasoning (with premise I accept as true), I will always say "I don't know". Frustrated?
Also I'd like to point out that the hypothesis was not about a living (as in sex, eat and shit) AI, but a machine with feelings and intelligence. I guess you will say that only a high-level (biologically) living organism can have feelings but this is a premise I don't accept as true (so you'll have to prove it).
life only comes from life. Are you suggesting that this premise is invalid? If so, on what facts would you base your opposition?
Of course I think the premise is invalid! I don't believe in Creation! Are you a Jehovah Witness or something?
Privileges that have a good possibility, to me, of impacting my own rights.
Selfish?
The question that you present is a moral question of trying to maintain someones existing life. The question with AI is whether it can ever be alive in the first place.
No it was not. The question was should we give rights to something (not human) which exhibit intelligence and feelings the same way as we do. It's a moral question. Up to now your answer was it can't have "real" feelings. This was not the question and, obviously, you refuse to put aside your (religious) convictions even if it's only to answer an hypothesis.
The entire paragraph you just wrote is complete science-fiction and assumption
Duh! From the beginning this discussion is about science-fiction!
By doing so you are actually marginalizing the rights of the living things.
Yeah, I'm sure my cat's rights will be marginalized! (BTW that's irony)
Now, the interesting question is how and why do you think our rights will be marginilized? You see, in order to come to the conclusion that o
many seem to have already come to a conclusion, despite the fact that this is virgin ground. Again, I say slow down.
Saying to slow down IS coming to a conclusion... And some time it's the worst conclusion of all. Take for example three persons in a building on fire. One says "we take the stairs", another one says "we take the elevator" and the last one says "we should think first". Do you really think that debating which exit is better is the best thing to do in a situation like this?
Of course, there is no AI yet and I'll be the first to say that giving rights (now) to something which could, in the end, never exist is absurd. But what we are discussing here is what we would do IF an AI came to us tomorrow and asked for its freedom. We would have to take a decision. We could say "yes", "no" or "we'll think about it and, when we'll feel like it, we'll give you an answer" (which in practice is equivalent to "no").
What is the best for humanity? What would the AI do if we said "no"? Kill us all? On the other hand what would be the consequences of giving an intelligent machine the same rigths as we give to other humans? Obviously it depends on what the AI is. But how can I know what the AI will be like since it doesn't exist yet? The answer is simple: I have to do some anthropomorphism. And in the end it's not a bad idea since if we create an AI we'll probably create it based on what we know... And what we know is our own kind of intelligence.
Yes all of this is highly hypothetical to say the least. But what is interesting in this discussion is not what we would do with the AI... The interesting part in this discussion is it give us an excuse for introspection. It allows us to better know what we are. It's the same kind of question as "if your wife was sick, would you steal to get her medecine?" that we did in high school.
But let's come back to our subject. If we said "no" to the AI there is a probability he'll try to kill us. One solution would be to destroy it but if someone can build an AI, he can certainly build two. And here we are... organizing "AI hunt"... with our children seing us killing something who is begging us to spare "his life". And to think some people believe violent videogames are bad for children!
And the worst would be if we did succeed in destroying all AI. You see, humanity is always seeking enemies. We compete to be the one on top and we certainly don't play fair. We form alliances to be stronger and, once we are, we are not afraid to do whatever it takes to stay on top. There will always be an enemy and a war to win. Now, what would happen if we win a war against AIs? Who will be the next enemies? I guess other humans. So here we are, used to see "things" begging for their lives (probably feeling joy when one of our hunt is sucessful), and suddenly thinking that black people are not as equal as white people.
I believe that [science and religion] are not mutually exclusive
I was not talking about knowledge (truth or not) provided by science or religion but about methodology. Science says observe, make hypothesis, research, draw conclusions and then do it again because those conclusions are probably not the truth. OTOH religion is about dogmas and faith. Science says if you have questions try to answer them by yourself, religion says we have answer and you better not question them. When I ask "science or religion?" I mean do we accept dogmas or not?
For whom? We'll find out who gets "schooled".
When I said "high school level philosophy" it wasn't intended as an insult. It's just that slashdot is not the place for a 100 pages essay.
You just made a nonsense statement [I guess not so self awareness is real but it's certainly not reality].
It means that what we call self awareness is only an illusion.
If our mind is just the manifestation of the electrochemical processes that are in the brain, how would you transfer it? If it's not, if there's something more to
there are these little things called consequences to our actions.
That's why we should not try to create an AI in the first place. But for the same reason human clones will be created, an AI will be created (if it is technologically possible, of course). So what do we do with it? Try to destroy it as soon as one is created? Try to control and use it? Give it rights? Each of these choices have consequences. Which one is the best for humanity? Here's a similar question: what do we do with nuclear weapons? Do we destroy our own nuclear weapons and declare war to any country trying to build some? Do we keep ours but still declare war to others? Accept those weapons as a fact?
we shouldn't go jumping into things that we really don't understand so quickly
That's what we do all the time.
the human brain isn't "nothing more than an analog computer"
The question is: is the human brain an objet made of atoms obeying the laws of physics or is it something magical with a mystical soul? What should we trust? Science or religion?
I'll agree that the individual cells in the brain are not self aware, but, clearly, at some point self awareness is real
Ok, guess it's time for some high school level philosophy! Are you aware of each individual cells in your brain? I guess not so self awareness is real but it's certainly not reality. Yes, we are aware of our existence but what the hell are "we"? Am I a body with a brain or am I a soul? If my mind was transfered into a machine (use some imagination here) would it still be me? I would desperately say yes, of course! So I'm not a body that's for sure. But on the other hand it's clear our mind and our feelings are only electrical and chemical reactions so I'm not a "soul"either. So what the fuck am I? I don't know but... does it really matters?
And we STILL don't know. Yet you're going to haphazardly assume you do, and then act to give a machine rights. Amazing.
What is amazing is your belief that a right is something absolute. We give rights and we revoke them as we wish. The only true right is the right of the strongest. If one day a machine is stronger than we are it will give itself rights and there's nothing we could do to stop it.
No, I assumed nothing. [...] It was learned, not assumed.
You learn actions and their consequences. You assume explanations.
The assumptions are astounding. That the machine would be truly sentient, that not giving it rights is morally bad, the equivocation with true moral atrocities... Amazing.
What is amazing is your failure to understand what rights and wrongs are. They are only a tool we give ourself to obtain some personal goals. There's no such thing as universal rights or wrongs. If not giving rights to a sentient machine could result in my death then you can be pretty sure I will believe "not giving it rights" is morally bad.
Who's making a shrine to whom? Seems to me that I'm not the one that is doing so. [...] On the contrary, I am placing, not just myself, but all of humanity above machines.
That's exactly what I was saying. You believe you are some kind of superior thing no matter what. If one day a machine became more intelligent than you, you'll still believe you're a superior being. You'll use any excuse, even if you don't know what it means (like life) to justify your self-given rights.
And I am not alone...I believe you'll find that the vast majority of humans have the sense to hold to the same opinion that I do.
The vast majority of humans believe the sun is a ball of fire (like in combustion). I don't care what the majority of humans think. I don't think being a follower is something desirable.
Namely, that we have most certainly been given life through a mechanism that is clearly greater than we are.
Please, leave your fairy tales and your imaginary friend out of this.
I'd suggest you all stop being so arrogant
You are the arrogant one. You are the one who believe he is "special".
humans don't act like robots in the wild. most other animals do
Short answer is yes we do (if I remember correctly only 5% of our actions are thought) and there's not much difference between a human and most other animals. You believe that humans are special only because it makes you feel good about yourself. Yes we are the most intelligent animals but in the end we are only animals.
and how can you even say that you would give a computer the rights of a human? they don't have life. they are inanimate objects
What defines me is not my heartbeats but my thoughts. Intelligence is more important than life. If a computer can have thoughts then it is "alive" to me and I don't care if it rely on electricity to think instead of food.
that don't have feelings. and even if they were to have feelings, they wouldn't be real
And what make you think your feelings are real? After all a small electrical current in your brain is all it takes to make you happy. You call this real? I guess the problem is you believe your some kind of magical being. You're not.
if an "aged" computer [...] were to come to a decision that had to do with something it's never dealt with, it wouldn't know what to do, it would probably crash
Ok... I guess it's time for you to go to the library and read a good book about AI and programing because what you just said is stupid.
it would not be human since it can't draw from morals
Morals are not something mystical. Morals are only a set of arbitrary rules we decide to follow based on our understanding of our environment and our motivations. What it means is a human don't "draw from morals" he creates them to serve his needs.
Don't worry, people like you who put themselves in a shrine scare me too.
If one day a "computer" come to me and say (on its own) "I want to be free" then it means he understand the same way as I do what liberty is and he obviously feel the same way as I do what happiness is.
We do know that rights apply to us; clearly we have "life".
How can you say that we clearly have "life" if you believe we have no clear definition of what life is. Clearly you are illogical.
But, to go extending this to a machine [...] is to jump into the relm of foolishness.
I believe I am only an object. I believe I am not truly conscious. I believe my emotions are only a mechanism. I believe a human being is not a magical being. Why do I believe all that? Because I have no reason to believe otherwise (in other words I'm an atheist and I think logic is more important than any feeling I could have). If you do know why I should view myself as something special, please enlight me.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you pay $40 for a game. Not $800,000.
Have you ever slept in a hotel ? Well it's the same thing. You pay to have a right to sleep in a room, but the hotel is not yours.
$5/month for 4 years is $240. Cedega costs more than Windows. Also, by looking at their games database, it seems there is only 7 games that work perfectly. Sorry, but Cedega is WAY overpriced.
Can we play games with this ? If yes then it's perfect for a dual-boot system.
What ? "The Opposite of Sex" is a "fucking film" ?
Moulin Rouge was certainly not the worst movie ever, but it was "cheap" nonetheless. It was like macaroni and cheese or, at best, a pizza.
You're right, but I will not believe someone who says that Shrek is the worst movie he ever saw. He may not like it, but the worst movie ever ? Give me a break ! It was a troll.
So let's see... I can go to my friend's place and listen to his CDs. That's legal, right ?
And what if I'm not at my friend's place, but he puts the telephone near the speaker so I can hear ? Is it legal or is it a crime ?
And what if we use something like skype instead of a telephone ? Is is legal ?
And what if put his CD in his computer, and then make skype record every sound from his computer (instead of only his computer's microphone) so I can hear the CD ? Is it legal ?
And what if, instead of skype, he use a streaming program ? Is it legal ? I mean the only difference is the transfer protocol, right ?
And what if, instead of a stream, he send the file with ftp ? Is it legal ?
And what if we use a p2p program to transfer the file ? Is it legal ?
And what if I don't know the guy that well ? Is it legal ?
Help me ! I'm all confused !
Iraq was an ally! Of course some people in Washington were not pleased when Saddam decided to end the war with Iran...
Obviously we don't have the same source of information (or one of us is partial).
Most of the Shi'ite leaders in Iraq have said that they do not want a theocracy dominated Islamic Republic like the one in Iran.
And we all know that someone who wants to get elected always tell exactly what he thinks. 15 years ago the Iraqi people would have been able to know that. They were the most educated people of the region. But after so many years of sanctions, I'm pretty sure a lot of them will listen to the most demagogic leader.
And if the minority who wants an fundamentalist state do not get elected, they will blame the US for it. They will say the election was a sham and it will end up with a civil war or, at least, with terrorist attacks for several years. Which means US troops will have to stay, which means more hatred towards Americans.
I dont recall Islamic people attacking the United States because we let them control their government.
The problem is Bush has no intention of letting them control their government. That's why there was no election in Iraq up to now and that's why a constitution need to be created BEFORE any election. One of the goal of the war in Iraq was to take control of the region, not to let the Iraqi people control their government.
So what you're saying is you would rather have a leader that attacks his nieghbors and commits genocide on his own people, that risk having a religious man at the helm of a country?
I don't give a damn about Koweit (they were stealing oil from Iraq anyway) and even less about the Kurds (you know the ones that are also persecuted by the Turkish government). So please, cut the propaganda crap.
As for a religious man at the helm of a country... They are not only religious, they are fundamentalists. And, after all these years of frustration, they are fundamentalists with a vengeance. They will want the US out of Iraq, and they will want no part of any kind of american culture or influence in their nice religious country.
A tremendous victory? Why? Do you think Iraqi resistance will stop because of this?
But what I don't understand is why so many people know so little about Iraq. If there is a democracy in Iraq the ones who will be elected will be shiites leader... And the first thing they will do is transform Iraq into an islamic state like Iran.
The really funny part is that Saddam was fighting those shiites leader. For our safety, it would have been better to keep Saddam or at least keep the old regime.
Oh yes, it's a tremendous victory... for Islam!
I'm a computer consultant and I see a lot of bugs with MS Office too. Of course when Word screw up a document it's the computer's fault, not MS Office...
.doc to .rtf... Word was screwing up big time so I used OpenOffice in order to open the .doc and save them as .rtf (checked the documents back into Word and they were ok).
Also when you use OpenOffice DON'T save in the Microsoft file format. The filters are not perfect and sooner or later, you'll lose your formatting. Oh, and before you start complaining, MS Office filters are far worse than the ones in OpenOffice : last week I had to save several
news://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.openoffice.* can be used instead of the mailing lists. Take a look at http://www.openoffice.org/mail_list.html for more details.
Copyright infringement isn't theft, since it doesn't deprive someone else of anything.
Yes, it does deprive them of control. In a world where there is no copyright infringement, the copyright holder has total control on who can watch/ear/learn the copyrighted material. When someone "illegally" (notice the quotation marks) use an intellectual "property" the copyright holder lose this control. So yes, it is "stealing"... Now the question is : is it ok to steal one's own freedom?
I know what Flash is, thank you. But AFAIK most "software developers" (?) use it to make some nice animations for web pages. This means that Flash is popular because the flash player is everywhere... and the flash player is everywhere because it's really easy to install with Internet Explore (just click "yes", wait 5 seconds and you're done). To kill Flash the only thing Microsoft would have to do is pre-install an alternative and force people to download the flash player on their own.
Also you can't compare Macromedia with AOL not Apple.
I never liked C so (in the 80's) I used Turbo Pascal. When I saw C++ I thought it was even worse than C so I used Delphi. When Kylix went out I thought of buying it but I then discovered Ada... I never bought Kylix nor used Delphi again. Am I the only one?
And what about Internet Explorer, MSN Messenger and Windows Media Player? True, ICQ and Real Player are not dead... for now.
Photoshop, Dreamweaver and Premiere are specialized tools used only by a few people. Flash is a "standard". Of course installing flash is easy (just have to click "yes")... for now...
Before Iraq most people saw the USA as a leader. Now most people see the USA only as a selfish bully. Invading Iraq was a very stupid decision. The problem with Saddam Hussein was he overestimated Bush.
The US, used two bombs that ended world war two.
There's a difference between killing innocent people to force an enemy to surrender without condition and ending a war. The Japanese wanted to end the war months before Hiroshima.
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
Why make it illegal and risk a revolt when a simple demagogic TV ad can do the same thing?
we're not talking about something that requires an immediate decision [...] I'm suggesting a well thought out approach that accounts for reality, not anthropomorphic appearance.
Ok, since you obviously take everything I write to the first degree I'll try to be more explicit. If one day, unexpectedly, a robot came to me and asked for his freedom you can be sure I would think a lot before doing anything. In fact, I would be very skeptical about its ability to think and to have feelings. But I love to play games and I love hypothetical situations no matter how absurd they are. Why? Because I think it's a good way to know and understand myself (which I think is desirable). So from the beginning I assumed that the game was I had to take a decision NOW, based on what I know NOW.
[I have to do some anthropomorphism] Which, of course, is only valid if this thing is truly human-like.
Anthropomorphism means: "the attribution of human form or behavior to a deity, animal, etc". Maybe it's because I rarely speak english but to me it means that anthropomorphism only applies to things which are not human-like. I agree anthropomorphism is a dangerous thing but this does not mean that it is always wrong. I believe my cat has the same basic feelings (fear, happiness, frustration...) as I do. It is clearly anthropomorpism but it seems experiments made on both humans and other animals show that in this case anthropomorphism was justified. I guess you will say that a cat is a living being with a brain and is not a robot so the analogy don't apply. Well, this analogy is not to say that a robot can have feelings but only that sometimes anthropomorphism is valid, nothing more.
I believe it won't, it never will, and that it remains simply a machine that at most will have the appearance of life, not true life.
It all depend on what "true life" really is. I agree it won't be "biological life" (I will leave biological computer out of this) but, even though I'm the arrogant bastard here, I won't go as far as to say that no other kind of "life" is possible. The only thing I can say is I don't know (it all depends on the definition of the word "life") and, until you show me a good logical reasoning (with premise I accept as true), I will always say "I don't know". Frustrated?
Also I'd like to point out that the hypothesis was not about a living (as in sex, eat and shit) AI, but a machine with feelings and intelligence. I guess you will say that only a high-level (biologically) living organism can have feelings but this is a premise I don't accept as true (so you'll have to prove it).
life only comes from life. Are you suggesting that this premise is invalid? If so, on what facts would you base your opposition?
Of course I think the premise is invalid! I don't believe in Creation! Are you a Jehovah Witness or something?
Privileges that have a good possibility, to me, of impacting my own rights.
Selfish?
The question that you present is a moral question of trying to maintain someones existing life. The question with AI is whether it can ever be alive in the first place.
No it was not. The question was should we give rights to something (not human) which exhibit intelligence and feelings the same way as we do. It's a moral question. Up to now your answer was it can't have "real" feelings. This was not the question and, obviously, you refuse to put aside your (religious) convictions even if it's only to answer an hypothesis.
The entire paragraph you just wrote is complete science-fiction and assumption
Duh! From the beginning this discussion is about science-fiction!
By doing so you are actually marginalizing the rights of the living things.
Yeah, I'm sure my cat's rights will be marginalized! (BTW that's irony)
Now, the interesting question is how and why do you think our rights will be marginilized? You see, in order to come to the conclusion that o
many seem to have already come to a conclusion, despite the fact that this is virgin ground. Again, I say slow down.
Saying to slow down IS coming to a conclusion... And some time it's the worst conclusion of all. Take for example three persons in a building on fire. One says "we take the stairs", another one says "we take the elevator" and the last one says "we should think first". Do you really think that debating which exit is better is the best thing to do in a situation like this?
Of course, there is no AI yet and I'll be the first to say that giving rights (now) to something which could, in the end, never exist is absurd. But what we are discussing here is what we would do IF an AI came to us tomorrow and asked for its freedom. We would have to take a decision. We could say "yes", "no" or "we'll think about it and, when we'll feel like it, we'll give you an answer" (which in practice is equivalent to "no").
What is the best for humanity? What would the AI do if we said "no"? Kill us all? On the other hand what would be the consequences of giving an intelligent machine the same rigths as we give to other humans? Obviously it depends on what the AI is. But how can I know what the AI will be like since it doesn't exist yet? The answer is simple: I have to do some anthropomorphism. And in the end it's not a bad idea since if we create an AI we'll probably create it based on what we know... And what we know is our own kind of intelligence.
Yes all of this is highly hypothetical to say the least. But what is interesting in this discussion is not what we would do with the AI... The interesting part in this discussion is it give us an excuse for introspection. It allows us to better know what we are. It's the same kind of question as "if your wife was sick, would you steal to get her medecine?" that we did in high school.
But let's come back to our subject. If we said "no" to the AI there is a probability he'll try to kill us. One solution would be to destroy it but if someone can build an AI, he can certainly build two. And here we are... organizing "AI hunt"... with our children seing us killing something who is begging us to spare "his life". And to think some people believe violent videogames are bad for children!
And the worst would be if we did succeed in destroying all AI. You see, humanity is always seeking enemies. We compete to be the one on top and we certainly don't play fair. We form alliances to be stronger and, once we are, we are not afraid to do whatever it takes to stay on top. There will always be an enemy and a war to win. Now, what would happen if we win a war against AIs? Who will be the next enemies? I guess other humans. So here we are, used to see "things" begging for their lives (probably feeling joy when one of our hunt is sucessful), and suddenly thinking that black people are not as equal as white people.
I believe that [science and religion] are not mutually exclusive
I was not talking about knowledge (truth or not) provided by science or religion but about methodology. Science says observe, make hypothesis, research, draw conclusions and then do it again because those conclusions are probably not the truth. OTOH religion is about dogmas and faith. Science says if you have questions try to answer them by yourself, religion says we have answer and you better not question them. When I ask "science or religion?" I mean do we accept dogmas or not?
For whom? We'll find out who gets "schooled".
When I said "high school level philosophy" it wasn't intended as an insult. It's just that slashdot is not the place for a 100 pages essay.
You just made a nonsense statement [I guess not so self awareness is real but it's certainly not reality].
It means that what we call self awareness is only an illusion.
If our mind is just the manifestation of the electrochemical processes that are in the brain, how would you transfer it? If it's not, if there's something more to
there are these little things called consequences to our actions.
That's why we should not try to create an AI in the first place. But for the same reason human clones will be created, an AI will be created (if it is technologically possible, of course). So what do we do with it? Try to destroy it as soon as one is created? Try to control and use it? Give it rights? Each of these choices have consequences. Which one is the best for humanity? Here's a similar question: what do we do with nuclear weapons? Do we destroy our own nuclear weapons and declare war to any country trying to build some? Do we keep ours but still declare war to others? Accept those weapons as a fact?
we shouldn't go jumping into things that we really don't understand so quickly
That's what we do all the time.
the human brain isn't "nothing more than an analog computer"
The question is: is the human brain an objet made of atoms obeying the laws of physics or is it something magical with a mystical soul? What should we trust? Science or religion?
I'll agree that the individual cells in the brain are not self aware, but, clearly, at some point self awareness is real
Ok, guess it's time for some high school level philosophy! Are you aware of each individual cells in your brain? I guess not so self awareness is real but it's certainly not reality. Yes, we are aware of our existence but what the hell are "we"? Am I a body with a brain or am I a soul? If my mind was transfered into a machine (use some imagination here) would it still be me? I would desperately say yes, of course! So I'm not a body that's for sure. But on the other hand it's clear our mind and our feelings are only electrical and chemical reactions so I'm not a "soul"either. So what the fuck am I? I don't know but... does it really matters?
And we STILL don't know. Yet you're going to haphazardly assume you do, and then act to give a machine rights. Amazing.
What is amazing is your belief that a right is something absolute. We give rights and we revoke them as we wish. The only true right is the right of the strongest. If one day a machine is stronger than we are it will give itself rights and there's nothing we could do to stop it.
No, I assumed nothing. [...] It was learned, not assumed.
You learn actions and their consequences. You assume explanations.
The assumptions are astounding. That the machine would be truly sentient, that not giving it rights is morally bad, the equivocation with true moral atrocities... Amazing.
What is amazing is your failure to understand what rights and wrongs are. They are only a tool we give ourself to obtain some personal goals. There's no such thing as universal rights or wrongs. If not giving rights to a sentient machine could result in my death then you can be pretty sure I will believe "not giving it rights" is morally bad.
Who's making a shrine to whom? Seems to me that I'm not the one that is doing so. [...] On the contrary, I am placing, not just myself, but all of humanity above machines.
That's exactly what I was saying. You believe you are some kind of superior thing no matter what. If one day a machine became more intelligent than you, you'll still believe you're a superior being. You'll use any excuse, even if you don't know what it means (like life) to justify your self-given rights.
And I am not alone...I believe you'll find that the vast majority of humans have the sense to hold to the same opinion that I do.
The vast majority of humans believe the sun is a ball of fire (like in combustion). I don't care what the majority of humans think. I don't think being a follower is something desirable.
Namely, that we have most certainly been given life through a mechanism that is clearly greater than we are.
Please, leave your fairy tales and your imaginary friend out of this.
I'd suggest you all stop being so arrogant
You are the arrogant one. You are the one who believe he is "special".
humans don't act like robots in the wild. most other animals do
Short answer is yes we do (if I remember correctly only 5% of our actions are thought) and there's not much difference between a human and most other animals. You believe that humans are special only because it makes you feel good about yourself. Yes we are the most intelligent animals but in the end we are only animals.
and how can you even say that you would give a computer the rights of a human? they don't have life. they are inanimate objects
What defines me is not my heartbeats but my thoughts. Intelligence is more important than life. If a computer can have thoughts then it is "alive" to me and I don't care if it rely on electricity to think instead of food.
that don't have feelings. and even if they were to have feelings, they wouldn't be real
And what make you think your feelings are real? After all a small electrical current in your brain is all it takes to make you happy. You call this real? I guess the problem is you believe your some kind of magical being. You're not.
if an "aged" computer [...] were to come to a decision that had to do with something it's never dealt with, it wouldn't know what to do, it would probably crash
Ok... I guess it's time for you to go to the library and read a good book about AI and programing because what you just said is stupid.
it would not be human since it can't draw from morals
Morals are not something mystical. Morals are only a set of arbitrary rules we decide to follow based on our understanding of our environment and our motivations. What it means is a human don't "draw from morals" he creates them to serve his needs.
Don't worry, people like you who put themselves in a shrine scare me too.
If one day a "computer" come to me and say (on its own) "I want to be free" then it means he understand the same way as I do what liberty is and he obviously feel the same way as I do what happiness is.
We do know that rights apply to us; clearly we have "life".
How can you say that we clearly have "life" if you believe we have no clear definition of what life is. Clearly you are illogical.
But, to go extending this to a machine [...] is to jump into the relm of foolishness.
I believe I am only an object. I believe I am not truly conscious. I believe my emotions are only a mechanism. I believe a human being is not a magical being. Why do I believe all that? Because I have no reason to believe otherwise (in other words I'm an atheist and I think logic is more important than any feeling I could have). If you do know why I should view myself as something special, please enlight me.