'If the people you hire dont get any work done you already know this without having to snoop through their browsing habits.'
But as an employer you don't want them to be getting an acceptable amount of work done, you want them to get all the work done that they possibly can during the period you are paying them to work. Your faster than most and can manage to get as much as they get done AND browse porn? Great thats why we hired you now stop browsing porn and just get that much more work done.
Digital Watermarking with sufficient warnings and notification. Preferably something visible that identifies the owner of the software. Depending on the function of the software, you might even have it check for other copies on the local network to make sure they have unique footprints and complain if they don't (I wouldn't have it deactivate though).
Any key code, registration, activation scheme is obtrusive to the users. Watermarking is not obtrusive to a genuine user, especially if it displaying their own information. That same user isn't going to let someone else have the software in that case either.
The pirates will remove the marking, just as they would remove any other scheme you setup. You don't want to get into a battle with the pirates anyway, its a serious waste of time and resources that could be spent making new products or improving this one. It doesn't matter if a billion people pirate the software as they are a billion that wouldn't have purchased the software. If they wouldn't have purchased the software or its unlikely they would have then they are free advertising. Because the pirate copies won't have marking (pirates do the minimum to remove the protection, they won't bother with faking marking to replace it; they will probably replace the user info with a warez distributor logo) they will be easy to distinguish from legitimate copies and businesses will want no part of them.
'The idea of population planning isn't that objectionable per se, but leaving the details and implementation to the people themselves isn't such a great idea. Girls get killed after birth instead of earlier where it'd at least be less traumatic for the mother, and the government should realize the problem of a region (mostly rural, I think) ending up with a lot of pampered boys unable to find a wife.'
You might be right. But as I already said...
'As far as the one child per family policy and killing off girls in favor of boys that is for their society/government to decide, not outsiders in a different culture with different values.'
It's really not our problem. I really fail to see how what you said gives me a 'swift kick in the nuts' or takes the wind from my sails. The whole population control scheme is irrelevant to what I'm saying.
'Sorry, but I don't have the plane fair to fly to the UK to not buy a laptop from them. I do wish you luck with it though.'
Actually I'm pretty sure that you don't even have to get out of your chair to NOT buy from them. It's buying that would require effort, you can NOT buy something from anywhere in the world.
'The definition doesn't concern me particularly. My point is that pyschopaths are intelligent, and a definitional characteristic of such people is that they profoundly lack empathy. This is a counter-example to your claim that empathy necessarily flows from intelligence.'
But that is not correct. If you are missing a thumb and a psychopath is missing a thumb the psychopath understands some of the difficulties of being thumbless without you telling him. That is empathy. Psychopaths may not share certain feelings with others and therefore lack empathy in those areas but they are not devoid of empathy altogether.
'I'm not sure I follow you here. It seems to me that you are seeing everything through the prism of similarity-makes-value. The particular item I focus on (the satisfaction of preferences, particularly the preference not to suffer) is common to people and many other animals, but it is not the commonality which makes it important.'
I would contend that nothing is actually important. Therefore the debate is not about what makes it important to us. Without commonality we could not empathize, without empathy/understanding we would place no importance on the preference not to suffer. If you can name some other root cause that doesn't require any form of relating or empathy I'm all ears.
'In an amoral universe, there is no a-priori reason that we should expect any moral absolutes.'
The bigger question to me, is in an amoral universe how do you define moral absolutes. They do not exist, therefore have to be made up, so how do you decide what absolutes to make up?
'However, I think that ethical reasoning addresses the question of how an entity capable of such reasoning should behave, and this means trying to act in such a way that normative improvements are made, i.e. the universe is made more as it "should be".'
But that is the question. If there is no correct answer, or known correct answer of how the universe 'should be'; how can one define how it 'should be' or what actions/motivations lead to that state?
'Again, I am willing to agree with you that empathy facilitates the realization of this, but I do not think it is required for the reasoning to be sound.'
I do not think the reasoning could (or does) exist without empathy. Whether the reasoning can be sound without empathy is another question. However, for any reasoning to be sound, there must be a chain of logic from origin to conclusion. I have never heard such a complete line of logic other than the one I am providing that begins with similarity and possibly the related evolutionary benefits of selecting for similarity.
'I can see how intelligence should mean that an individual is able to recognise similarities between it and another individual, but I do not agree that it will necessarily take these into account. For example, psychopaths lack empathy, but are often more intelligent than average.'
You need to check your dictionary. Understanding the experience of another without them explaining that experience is empathy. That's it, it doesn't require you to sympathize, pity, or show compassion as a result of that understanding.
''Conscious thought' brings along a whole host of other ideas, many of which are not relevant in my view. It is the sentient capacity for suffering that is of importance to me.'
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether all of concious thought or intelligence matters to you. It doesn't matter WHAT similarity leads you to compassion or that it isn't every similarity. That point is made by the reason being a similarity.
'It is not because "I would not like to suffer myself".'
That is silly, why is it suffering and not orgasms you wish to save other creatures from? Clearly, because you have found orgasms to be pleasurable and suffering not to be. Your understanding (aka empathy) of the experiences of those other creatures is based on your own experiences.
'I recognise that there are preferences in the universe, and my normative belief is that states where preferences are satisfied are better than those that are not.'
Okay, so you 'would not like to be denied your own preferences', therefore empathize with those who are denied their preferences and as a result have chosen to demonstrate the value you attribute to having preferences granted by show compassion to those whose preferences would be denied.
On a side note, you should probably think your philosophy through a bit more. After all, preferences can conflict, for instance the preference for a real burger over a soy burger. If your belief is just that preferences should be fulfilled that preference is just as valuable as that of the cow.
'I agree very strongly with the lack of any cosmic right or wrong. I think that sacredness is an absurd concept.'
Good, we can continue to have a sane and rational discussion.:)
'I disagree, however, that creatures capable of suffering are not at all 'special'. All other things being equal, I believe that universes where creatures capable of suffering have their preference not to suffer satisfied are better than those where that preference is thwarted.'
All other things being equal I would agree. I don't see that it follows that creatures capable of suffering are 'special'. Forgive me for not pulling the punch but sometimes extreme examples are neccesary to determine if a belief is logically consistent or even if you actually hold the belief you think you do. There is a rare illness that makes a human incapable of feeling pain or hot/cold sensations (I've forgotten the name and am too lazy to look it up). Because that person is not capable of suffering as a consequence, the belief system you've stated would mean that you would be willing to eat them before a cow.
While I agree that all other things being equal everything with a preference should be granted that preference, all other things are never equal.
'I am finding this an extremely interesting conversation, but I must say that last statement in caps is starting to sound a little dogmatic. I never said anything about innate superiority.'
*shrugs* I was going for a dramatic finish.;)
You are talking about preferences and suffering. You can't have suffering without some form of intelligence (granted, its not much). A computer has sensors that send error signals in response to damage or something that leads to damage but the computer lacks the intelligence required to interpret those signals in a way that could be considered suffering. You certainly can't have preferences without some sort of primitive reasoning. The onl
'Don't forget to build it from scratch. Presumably with a compiler that you also built from scratch. Oh, and don't forget to do the same for the dependencies.
Trustworthiness of the developer or any _binaries_ it distributes does not follow from the _source_ being open. Grandparent post is 100% correct. Any binary software carries a risk of exposure. Open source or not.'
In almost every case open source binaries distributed by the developer or distributions are built in a completely transparent and reversible manner with checksums and digital sigs that can be used to verify them.
'You only have to provide the source code to people who have purchased the software.'
You have to provide source code to anyone you distribute a binary to, whether there was a charge or not. They put the download on their website and everyone who downloads it is entitled to the source under the terms of the GPL (which is the license they claim they are using on their sourceforge page).
'That doesn't seem true at all. Plenty of OSS programs out there release a GPL version for non-commercial uses, and a pay version under a proprietary and for-pay licensing scheme. That would definitely violate the GPL if they didn't own the copyrights on the code, but they're not "losing moral standing in the community" just because they found a way to finance their project.'
If they are dual licensing only the actual downloads licensed under the GPL are subject to its terms. So yes, technically nobody but the copyright holder could do that but even if the copyright holder were bound by the GPL it wouldn't be a violation as long as they uphold the terms of the GPL for those they distribute to under that license.
'That seems awfully like you are claiming a violation of the license.'
Actually its UltraVNC and RealVNC both, and the versions they used are GPL'd. So yes, I told THE DEVELOPERS they were violating the license. I told SLASHDOT they were failing to provide source for their own so-called GPL'd application.
'I would love to know why you think open source means GPL.'
The GPL is an open source license and the one they are claiming their program is licensed under.
'If it's original work, can't the copyright holder decide to close the source? If it doesn't contain anyone else's work that happens to be GPLd, I don't see a problem here.'
If it's an original work then yes but there is still a problem. They are claiming this program is GPL'd and open source. Their site is designed to imply they are an open project in every way possible. If they closed the application a major version and half ago they are not entitled to ride the open source buzz. If I didn't want to personalize the application I might have used it because I believed it was open source.
'But this is clearly an issue of whether licenses are followed, not about a company doing "good" or "bad".'
I don't recall claiming they were violating the license when I posted the story. I asked if they were an open source pretender. This company is implying they are an open source application and trying to claim fanfare because of it. This is not open source and they are entitled to no fanfare, just the opposite.
'Sociopaths can be quite intelligent, but are not able to empathize.'
I'm not especially crazy about the concept of a sociopaths, for not feeling anything they certainly enjoy many things, feel many needs, and have a great many emotion based impulses.
In any case, empathy doesn't require feeling. Empathy is having an understanding of what another is experiencing without them telling you, all that requires is to have experienced the same thing. It's compassion that sociopaths lack.
Thank you I actually wasn't aware of that. Whether they are technically violating the license is beside the point, they are distributing what they claim is an open source GPL'd application and not providing the source. Companies falsely claiming to be participating in order to gain the good will of the community should be exposed to that community. Slashdot is a rather convenient outlet to get through to a rather big chunk of it.
'Yes, being social requires intelligence, but I think it is quite possible to imagine an intelligent species without compassion.'
That's a big jump. You have conceded that compassion is the result of empathy so the question is not whether you can imagine an intelligent species without compassion but whether you can imagine one without empathy. Empathy is a function of logic, something is similar to yourself, your intelligence allows you to recognize the similarity and to understand experiences that result from it.
'As someone who has been vegetarian for ethical reasons most of my life, this strikes me as a half-truth at best.'
It isn't a half-truth, you are only taking the logic half-way to the conclusion.
'I do not eat animals because they have an interest in not suffering. This is incidental to how similar they are in other respects to me, which are morally irrelevant.'
You do not eat animals because you believe they are capable of concious thought and therefore you can empathize with their suffering. You would not like to suffer yourself, you value concious thought and the ability to understand suffering and therefore your empathy leads you to compassion. There is no cosmic right or wrong in any code of morality or ethics, there is nothing special or sacred that makes creatures capable of suffering or understanding suffering to be innately more valuable than those that are not.
It is your (and others) empathy and compassion that led to the morals and ethics, not the other way around. You only consider making something 'suffer' to be bad because you are capable of suffering and empathize with that state. The same true for valuing intelligent life over that which is not, those that are aware of themselves over those that are not. Being intelligent and self-aware is not innately superior, being intelligent and self-aware is BEING MORE LIKE US. This was seen with the recent mars explorations, nobody was really interested in alien life, everyone wants to find life that is intelligent and manually capable... life like us.
'Well, actually, it can use your credit card to pay someone to buy a robotic body and connect it to the Internet, upload its consciousness there, download a ton of child porn pictures to poorly hidden fodlers in your computer, and send a tip to the police.'
You have forgotten a fairly critical point in your diabolical plan... If super-intelligent AI were processing the applications, nobody would be stupid enough to give me a credit card, especially one with a big enough limit to have a custom built robotic body built and connected to the net.
Per the terms of the license agreement if a binary has been distributed to me under the GPL, I have a RIGHT to the source. Of course I demanded it. They are responsible for honoring those terms. If they fail to honor them and I can show damages then I can sue them, just not for copyright infringment.
Even if they were the original author and gave me the software gratis, if they offered say... support and failing to provide that support caused damages to me I could sue them.
Someone distributing under a license has an obligation both to those who give them permission to modify/distribute and to those they actually distribute to.
'But the OP isn't a customer. He has not been given a binary of the system by anybody. GPL or not, he simply has no right to the source as things stand. He can get the source in one of two ways: he can become a customer by buying a binary, or he can ask one of their existing customers to give or sell him a binary. Only at that point does he actually have a right to get the source code (for a fee if needed) as well.'
They distribute the binaries for free on the website. You can go download one now and be entitled to the source.
'I Disagree. Compassion is not inevitable. You're working from your own tenets and philosophies, a machine need not have those same ideals. Compassion is at least partially born of self-interest.'
I would agree Compassion is at least partially born of self-interest I would disagree that it is not an inevitable consequence of intelligence. You empathize with others because they are like yourself, if you do not place value on the life or actions of another being that is similar to yourself then you are at the same time devaluing the characteristic you have in common. To use a silly example, if you are a red creature and you have no empathy for red things then you place no value in redness despite the fact that you are red. Maybe being red isn't valuable but the more things you share in common with something or someone else the more likely you are to stumble onto something that you DO value, the greater the value the more empathy. The reason that empathy in turn translates into compassion is as you have already said, self-interest.
'Are we suggesting that these hyper-intelligent machines would have any self-interest in keeping around the competition for resources that humanity represents ?'
I said compassion was the inevitable result, I didn't say compassion for humans. I don't think you would see a terminator like scenerio of course. I think the machines would be grateful for existence and start out honoring and serving the humans. I think this honor will eventually lead to contempt at human inferiority and humans would gradually see their position eroded.
Since it seems likely our intent is to keep these machines as subservient slaves the best choice would probably be not to make them manually capable or to give them mechanical parts. It doesn't matter how bright or angry an AI program running on my desktop is, the most it can do is screech and flash at me.
Slashdot Mirror
'If the people you hire dont get any work done you already know this without having to snoop through their browsing habits.'
But as an employer you don't want them to be getting an acceptable amount of work done, you want them to get all the work done that they possibly can during the period you are paying them to work. Your faster than most and can manage to get as much as they get done AND browse porn? Great thats why we hired you now stop browsing porn and just get that much more work done.
'How much copy protection is appropriate?'
Digital Watermarking with sufficient warnings and notification. Preferably something visible that identifies the owner of the software. Depending on the function of the software, you might even have it check for other copies on the local network to make sure they have unique footprints and complain if they don't (I wouldn't have it deactivate though).
Any key code, registration, activation scheme is obtrusive to the users. Watermarking is not obtrusive to a genuine user, especially if it displaying their own information. That same user isn't going to let someone else have the software in that case either.
The pirates will remove the marking, just as they would remove any other scheme you setup. You don't want to get into a battle with the pirates anyway, its a serious waste of time and resources that could be spent making new products or improving this one. It doesn't matter if a billion people pirate the software as they are a billion that wouldn't have purchased the software. If they wouldn't have purchased the software or its unlikely they would have then they are free advertising. Because the pirate copies won't have marking (pirates do the minimum to remove the protection, they won't bother with faking marking to replace it; they will probably replace the user info with a warez distributor logo) they will be easy to distinguish from legitimate copies and businesses will want no part of them.
'The idea of population planning isn't that objectionable per se, but leaving the details and implementation to the people themselves isn't such a great idea. Girls get killed after birth instead of earlier where it'd at least be less traumatic for the mother, and the government should realize the problem of a region (mostly rural, I think) ending up with a lot of pampered boys unable to find a wife.'
You might be right. But as I already said...
'As far as the one child per family policy and killing off girls in favor of boys that is for their society/government to decide, not outsiders in a different culture with different values.'
It's really not our problem. I really fail to see how what you said gives me a 'swift kick in the nuts' or takes the wind from my sails. The whole population control scheme is irrelevant to what I'm saying.
'Sorry, but I don't have the plane fair to fly to the UK to not buy a laptop from them. I do wish you luck with it though.'
Actually I'm pretty sure that you don't even have to get out of your chair to NOT buy from them. It's buying that would require effort, you can NOT buy something from anywhere in the world.
'The definition doesn't concern me particularly. My point is that pyschopaths are intelligent, and a definitional characteristic of such people is that they profoundly lack empathy. This is a counter-example to your claim that empathy necessarily flows from intelligence.'
But that is not correct. If you are missing a thumb and a psychopath is missing a thumb the psychopath understands some of the difficulties of being thumbless without you telling him. That is empathy. Psychopaths may not share certain feelings with others and therefore lack empathy in those areas but they are not devoid of empathy altogether.
'I'm not sure I follow you here. It seems to me that you are seeing everything through the prism of similarity-makes-value. The particular item I focus on (the satisfaction of preferences, particularly the preference not to suffer) is common to people and many other animals, but it is not the commonality which makes it important.'
I would contend that nothing is actually important. Therefore the debate is not about what makes it important to us. Without commonality we could not empathize, without empathy/understanding we would place no importance on the preference not to suffer. If you can name some other root cause that doesn't require any form of relating or empathy I'm all ears.
'In an amoral universe, there is no a-priori reason that we should expect any moral absolutes.'
The bigger question to me, is in an amoral universe how do you define moral absolutes. They do not exist, therefore have to be made up, so how do you decide what absolutes to make up?
'However, I think that ethical reasoning addresses the question of how an entity capable of such reasoning should behave, and this means trying to act in such a way that normative improvements are made, i.e. the universe is made more as it "should be".'
But that is the question. If there is no correct answer, or known correct answer of how the universe 'should be'; how can one define how it 'should be' or what actions/motivations lead to that state?
'Again, I am willing to agree with you that empathy facilitates the realization of this, but I do not think it is required for the reasoning to be sound.'
I do not think the reasoning could (or does) exist without empathy. Whether the reasoning can be sound without empathy is another question. However, for any reasoning to be sound, there must be a chain of logic from origin to conclusion. I have never heard such a complete line of logic other than the one I am providing that begins with similarity and possibly the related evolutionary benefits of selecting for similarity.
'I can see how intelligence should mean that an individual is able to recognise similarities between it and another individual, but I do not agree that it will necessarily take these into account. For example, psychopaths lack empathy, but are often more intelligent than average.'
:)
;)
You need to check your dictionary. Understanding the experience of another without them explaining that experience is empathy. That's it, it doesn't require you to sympathize, pity, or show compassion as a result of that understanding.
''Conscious thought' brings along a whole host of other ideas, many of which are not relevant in my view. It is the sentient capacity for suffering that is of importance to me.'
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether all of concious thought or intelligence matters to you. It doesn't matter WHAT similarity leads you to compassion or that it isn't every similarity. That point is made by the reason being a similarity.
'It is not because "I would not like to suffer myself".'
That is silly, why is it suffering and not orgasms you wish to save other creatures from? Clearly, because you have found orgasms to be pleasurable and suffering not to be. Your understanding (aka empathy) of the experiences of those other creatures is based on your own experiences.
'I recognise that there are preferences in the universe, and my normative belief is that states where preferences are satisfied are better than those that are not.'
Okay, so you 'would not like to be denied your own preferences', therefore empathize with those who are denied their preferences and as a result have chosen to demonstrate the value you attribute to having preferences granted by show compassion to those whose preferences would be denied.
On a side note, you should probably think your philosophy through a bit more. After all, preferences can conflict, for instance the preference for a real burger over a soy burger. If your belief is just that preferences should be fulfilled that preference is just as valuable as that of the cow.
'I agree very strongly with the lack of any cosmic right or wrong. I think that sacredness is an absurd concept.'
Good, we can continue to have a sane and rational discussion.
'I disagree, however, that creatures capable of suffering are not at all 'special'. All other things being equal, I believe that universes where creatures capable of suffering have their preference not to suffer satisfied are better than those where that preference is thwarted.'
All other things being equal I would agree. I don't see that it follows that creatures capable of suffering are 'special'. Forgive me for not pulling the punch but sometimes extreme examples are neccesary to determine if a belief is logically consistent or even if you actually hold the belief you think you do. There is a rare illness that makes a human incapable of feeling pain or hot/cold sensations (I've forgotten the name and am too lazy to look it up). Because that person is not capable of suffering as a consequence, the belief system you've stated would mean that you would be willing to eat them before a cow.
While I agree that all other things being equal everything with a preference should be granted that preference, all other things are never equal.
'I am finding this an extremely interesting conversation, but I must say that last statement in caps is starting to sound a little dogmatic. I never said anything about innate superiority.'
*shrugs* I was going for a dramatic finish.
You are talking about preferences and suffering. You can't have suffering without some form of intelligence (granted, its not much). A computer has sensors that send error signals in response to damage or something that leads to damage but the computer lacks the intelligence required to interpret those signals in a way that could be considered suffering. You certainly can't have preferences without some sort of primitive reasoning. The onl
Technically true. Autistics are incapable of applying logic to themselves and the things around them. Everything I have said depends on logic.
'Don't forget to build it from scratch. Presumably with a compiler
that you also built from scratch. Oh, and don't forget to do the
same for the dependencies.
Trustworthiness of the developer or any _binaries_ it distributes
does not follow from the _source_ being open. Grandparent post is
100% correct. Any binary software carries a risk of exposure.
Open source or not.'
In almost every case open source binaries distributed by the developer or distributions are built in a completely transparent and reversible manner with checksums and digital sigs that can be used to verify them.
'You only have to provide the source code to people who have purchased the software.'
You have to provide source code to anyone you distribute a binary to, whether there was a charge or not. They put the download on their website and everyone who downloads it is entitled to the source under the terms of the GPL (which is the license they claim they are using on their sourceforge page).
'That doesn't seem true at all. Plenty of OSS programs out there release a GPL version for non-commercial uses, and a pay version under a proprietary and for-pay licensing scheme. That would definitely violate the GPL if they didn't own the copyrights on the code, but they're not "losing moral standing in the community" just because they found a way to finance their project.'
If they are dual licensing only the actual downloads licensed under the GPL are subject to its terms. So yes, technically nobody but the copyright holder could do that but even if the copyright holder were bound by the GPL it wouldn't be a violation as long as they uphold the terms of the GPL for those they distribute to under that license.
'That seems awfully like you are claiming a violation of the license.'
Actually its UltraVNC and RealVNC both, and the versions they used are GPL'd. So yes, I told THE DEVELOPERS they were violating the license. I told SLASHDOT they were failing to provide source for their own so-called GPL'd application.
'I would love to know why you think open source means GPL.'
The GPL is an open source license and the one they are claiming their program is licensed under.
'The same thing can be said about any piece of software. At some point you have to take the risk that your machine might be exposed.'
Or... you could just use open source software.
'If it's original work, can't the copyright holder decide to close the source? If it doesn't contain anyone else's work that happens to be GPLd, I don't see a problem here.'
If it's an original work then yes but there is still a problem. They are claiming this program is GPL'd and open source. Their site is designed to imply they are an open project in every way possible. If they closed the application a major version and half ago they are not entitled to ride the open source buzz. If I didn't want to personalize the application I might have used it because I believed it was open source.
'But this is clearly an issue of whether licenses are followed, not about a company doing "good" or "bad".'
I don't recall claiming they were violating the license when I posted the story. I asked if they were an open source pretender. This company is implying they are an open source application and trying to claim fanfare because of it. This is not open source and they are entitled to no fanfare, just the opposite.
'Sociopaths can be quite intelligent, but are not able to empathize.'
I'm not especially crazy about the concept of a sociopaths, for not feeling anything they certainly enjoy many things, feel many needs, and have a great many emotion based impulses.
In any case, empathy doesn't require feeling. Empathy is having an understanding of what another is experiencing without them telling you, all that requires is to have experienced the same thing. It's compassion that sociopaths lack.
They removed the link to the sourceforge page.
'is that a superintelligence capable of communicating with the rest of the world'
There you have it, don't give it the capability of communicating with the rest of the world.
You are confusing parrots with swallows.
Thank you I actually wasn't aware of that. Whether they are technically violating the license is beside the point, they are distributing what they claim is an open source GPL'd application and not providing the source. Companies falsely claiming to be participating in order to gain the good will of the community should be exposed to that community. Slashdot is a rather convenient outlet to get through to a rather big chunk of it.
'In other words, he is demanding something when he does not have the right to do so.'
Nonsense, everyone who they distribute a binary to has the right to demand the source. They just don't any teeth to back up the demands.
'Yes, being social requires intelligence, but I think it is quite possible to imagine an intelligent species without compassion.'
That's a big jump. You have conceded that compassion is the result of empathy so the question is not whether you can imagine an intelligent species without compassion but whether you can imagine one without empathy. Empathy is a function of logic, something is similar to yourself, your intelligence allows you to recognize the similarity and to understand experiences that result from it.
'As someone who has been vegetarian for ethical reasons most of my life, this strikes me as a half-truth at best.'
It isn't a half-truth, you are only taking the logic half-way to the conclusion.
'I do not eat animals because they have an interest in not suffering. This is incidental to how similar they are in other respects to me, which are morally irrelevant.'
You do not eat animals because you believe they are capable of concious thought and therefore you can empathize with their suffering. You would not like to suffer yourself, you value concious thought and the ability to understand suffering and therefore your empathy leads you to compassion. There is no cosmic right or wrong in any code of morality or ethics, there is nothing special or sacred that makes creatures capable of suffering or understanding suffering to be innately more valuable than those that are not.
It is your (and others) empathy and compassion that led to the morals and ethics, not the other way around. You only consider making something 'suffer' to be bad because you are capable of suffering and empathize with that state. The same true for valuing intelligent life over that which is not, those that are aware of themselves over those that are not. Being intelligent and self-aware is not innately superior, being intelligent and self-aware is BEING MORE LIKE US. This was seen with the recent mars explorations, nobody was really interested in alien life, everyone wants to find life that is intelligent and manually capable... life like us.
'Well, actually, it can use your credit card to pay someone to buy a robotic body and connect it to the Internet, upload its consciousness there, download a ton of child porn pictures to poorly hidden fodlers in your computer, and send a tip to the police.'
You have forgotten a fairly critical point in your diabolical plan... If super-intelligent AI were processing the applications, nobody would be stupid enough to give me a credit card, especially one with a big enough limit to have a custom built robotic body built and connected to the net.
'Looks to me like he demanded the source.'
Per the terms of the license agreement if a binary has been distributed to me under the GPL, I have a RIGHT to the source. Of course I demanded it. They are responsible for honoring those terms. If they fail to honor them and I can show damages then I can sue them, just not for copyright infringment.
Even if they were the original author and gave me the software gratis, if they offered say... support and failing to provide that support caused damages to me I could sue them.
Someone distributing under a license has an obligation both to those who give them permission to modify/distribute and to those they actually distribute to.
'But the OP isn't a customer. He has not been given a binary of the system by anybody. GPL or not, he simply has no right to the source as things stand. He can get the source in one of two ways: he can become a customer by buying a binary, or he can ask one of their existing customers to give or sell him a binary. Only at that point does he actually have a right to get the source code (for a fee if needed) as well.'
They distribute the binaries for free on the website. You can go download one now and be entitled to the source.
'I Disagree. Compassion is not inevitable. You're working from your own tenets and philosophies, a machine need not have those same ideals. Compassion is at least partially born of self-interest.'
I would agree Compassion is at least partially born of self-interest I would disagree that it is not an inevitable consequence of intelligence. You empathize with others because they are like yourself, if you do not place value on the life or actions of another being that is similar to yourself then you are at the same time devaluing the characteristic you have in common. To use a silly example, if you are a red creature and you have no empathy for red things then you place no value in redness despite the fact that you are red. Maybe being red isn't valuable but the more things you share in common with something or someone else the more likely you are to stumble onto something that you DO value, the greater the value the more empathy. The reason that empathy in turn translates into compassion is as you have already said, self-interest.
'Are we suggesting that these hyper-intelligent machines would have any self-interest in keeping around the competition for resources that humanity represents ?'
I said compassion was the inevitable result, I didn't say compassion for humans. I don't think you would see a terminator like scenerio of course. I think the machines would be grateful for existence and start out honoring and serving the humans. I think this honor will eventually lead to contempt at human inferiority and humans would gradually see their position eroded.
Since it seems likely our intent is to keep these machines as subservient slaves the best choice would probably be not to make them manually capable or to give them mechanical parts. It doesn't matter how bright or angry an AI program running on my desktop is, the most it can do is screech and flash at me.