It all depends on your thread scenario. Most of the smaller side-projects I work on are of no interest to any entity able to intercept the data transfers, so I don't mind storing stuff in, say, Evernote or Dropbox where it is more convenient to do so.
The stuff that the survival of my small company depends on, running my own servers is worth the effort. For my holiday pictures, iCloud is perfectly acceptable.
When the going gets tough, the CEO will be the last to feel it. Lots of regular employees, many working in parts of the corporation having nothing to do with the fraudulent action, will feel it first.
If you want to hit the C-Level, you need to make a criminal case and accuse them directly.
Surely Mortgage Investors Corporation pulled in far more than $7.5 Million with this fraud.
Got any evidence for that?
Usually, damages are calculated so that they take away any profit gained from the action and then some. For example, in patent law cases, the penalty is defined as "up to three times the amount found or assessed".
The Internet is a huge place, much, much larger than The Web.
There is room for proprietary protocols and applications that only work with the servers/data of their providers. Oh wait, they all failed in the past.
So you try to latch your proprietary crap on to the medium that succeeded because of its free and open nature. Yeah, that's going to work.
In days past, people like the Firefox developers would make a stand and refuse to support this crap, standard or not. These days, sadly, I'm not so sure.
I'll exit at this point because we're down to ad hominem attacks and that's a sign all the real arguments have been exchanged.
The Google results are all from the USA, this story is from Germany. Maybe you spot the disconnect yourself, or maybe you're one of the people who automatically assume that everything on/. has to be about the US.
Because some terrorists would make a world-record RC plane to crash into a building... suuuure. Sorry, your argument doesn't pass the giggle test.
Some quick research indicates that it takes about 100kg of carefully placed explosives to do a controlled demolition on a building the size of the BILD HQ. Bringing it down in an impact explosion would take considerably more.
And that's assuming you get high-quality explosives. McVeigh detonated 2.4 tons of explosives to (mostly) bring down the Murrah.
Show me the RC plane that carries two tons and I will agree that we have a real threat there.
Some quick research says that 2 kg is considered a high payload for an RC plane, and the largest one I could find any reference to at all is 20 kg.
Yes, that's a bit of explosives. It'll cause a mess.
Yet, remember that this is an impact explosion. Most of the force will go out into the open air if you, for example, crash it against a bridge. Against almost any target, going there and placing the explosives would a) do more damage and b) don't require an RC plane.
The ICE train would shrug it off. They're designed to be hit by tree branches and not bother. At worst, the front window would break, at absolute worst, the driver would be hurt. Nothing would happen to the train or the passengers.
Aircraft taking off? First, nothing is as closely monitored as the airspace above an airport. Two, I don't think hitting it would be very easy.
Both highly unlikely scenarios. And they both don't fall under "infrastructure".:-)
The best friend of the government are paranoid idiots who paint everything in conspiracy theory pictures, because thanks to them, if anything really evil is going on, the warners won't be taken seriously.
It takes only one RC plane combined with an official state ceremony to wreak havoc on a scale which can be a threat to the state.
Power is too distributed in any western country for that. Luttwak debunked your claim in 1968.
You could blow up parliament and the state wouldn't be threatened. Sure, it would be in shock and all that, but nothing important would stop to function and we'd simply elect a new parliament the next month.
I wonder if the German government stores a database of every one of their citizens phone?
They don't need to. If you have a court order, the ISPs (which do have such databases) will provide the details you need.
Why can the Germans catch Islamic extremists using remote control planes, but the American government cannot catch Islamic extremists using pressure cookers?
Because, if you read TFA, these guys had been under observation for a year already. Basically, one of two things happened:
Either, the police decided that they won't learn anything new by further observation, or discover any more parts of the network, so to wrap things up and close the case, they arrested the guys and called it a day.
Or, politicians in charge needed something to distract. You see, they always keep stuff in store for that purpose. Pispers says it very nicely (on a different topic): http://youtu.be/qRWAyM26YV8?t=5m42s (english subs)
They could attack government people and do significant harm to infrastructure.
Which infrastructure can you harm with an RC plane and the tiny amount of explosives it can carry? A wooden footbridge in the Black Forest?
As for the government people, given the current government we have (which is much like that of any other western country these days), any attack on pretty much any of them would be a benefit to the country.
The most important thing you can learn in history is the difference between causation and occasion. Several of the european powers were already looking for war and would have taken any other excuse to start it. Against any other backdrop of politics, the assassination would've been headlines for two days and then forgotten.
Saying that Princip started WW1 is like saying that Caesar conquered Britain: A useful shortcut but as "Caesar" really only led the army that did the actual conquering so did Princip only provide the spark that ignited the fire others had been busy building up for many years.
Time to move away from Firefox, it seems, and I've been using it since long before it had that name.
Why? Because it's going down the bloatware road that already destroyed Open Office. If you want 3D or video conferences, or kitchen sinks or coffee machines in your browser, a plugin is the proper way to go, period.
I don't want it. It want to display HTML pages. That includes Javascript and CSS and stuff, but why the f&%$! does it even have a plugin system if every newfangled crap gets thrown into the core code?
Firefox is taking up 650 MB right now. Yeah, that's with a bunch of tabs open, but still. 650 fucking MB to surf the web. It is by far the most memory-hungry app I have open all the time. The next in the list (Mail) clocks in at 160 MB, that's less than a quarter.
No, thank you. I don't want any additional crap in my browser.
Who gets to decide what is "absolutely non-disputable"?
There is such a thing as established facts.
There have been a number of extensive court cases in Germany where the Holocaust-deniers on trial had ample opportunity to present any actual evidence they have.
You - like them - make a pseudo-argument that they're a repressed minority opinion. They're not. This is not a question of opinion, but of historic fact, and its misrepresentation for political reasons.
the path from "you cannot praise the Nazis" to "you cannot criticize the government" is steep and slippery.
That's so crazy you should get your head examined.
First: The laws are not about not praising the Nazis, they are a lot more specific and revolve around actions and statements of fact, not about voicing an opinion. You can say "I think the Nazis were great" on public TV in Germany and you won't get jailed.
Second: We have laws providing you the right to critizise the government, right in our constitution.
Third: The slope between these two only exists in your imagination.
Ok, so you're just talking about how the brain is not just a turing machine.
More precisely, I'm talking about how the brain is not just a machine.
Physicalism means everything that is exists within the realms of physics and let's forget about magic and souls and higher beings.
Mechanism means that everything can be explained with deterministic cause-and-effect chains, and things like randomness and free will are just an appearance of complexity.
I don't doubt physicalism, to the best of our current knowledge it holds true. Mechanism, on the other hand, has been on its deathbed ever since Einstein made his famous quote about the dice.
The limit of a map as accuracy approaches unity is an exact copy of the territory,
There is still a difference you can't get away with: The map will be in a different place. The map, even if it is a 1:1 copy, never is the territory.
Maybe I should've said that no matter how detailled and precise it describes the dishes, you shouldn't eat the menu.
Likewise, whatever function it is that constitutes "feeling", if we built something that perfectly carried out that function, or a function sufficiently similar to it, then it's more accurate to say that we built a thing that feels (perhaps not exactly like a human feels, but feeling nonetheless), than merely a thing that simulates feeling.
You still assume that emotions are a function. I claim it isn't. The details are still poorly understood, but emotions seem to be parts of a bigger network encompassing adaptive states and learnt reactions, processing shortcuts and acquired traits. What all that means is that it is unlikely that you will be able to isolate an emotion from everything else going on in the brain. Basically, you can't create true emotions without creating an entire brain-body replicate with consciousness, memory, education etc. etc. etc.
At which point you're building a human being, not a robot.
Last I checked, the so-called "hard problem" of "phenomenal consciousness", to which the question of emergence applies, was still an open issue, with competing answers to emergentism ranging from total skepticism (there really is no such thing, it's a confused idea) to refinements of panpsychism (such as panexperientialism, panprotopsychism, and panprotoexperientialism); and the easier problem of "access consciousness" was considered a mere triviality now, easily understood in mechanistic terms.
That's a mouthful and I admit I had to look up a term or two. I'm not really sure how any of this relates to the original point, though. If consciousness can be constructed by any means, I hold it to be reasonable to assume that we can engineer it as well, and not just duplicate humans. If we can engineer it, there is no reason to include the bugs of the naturally evolved system. Meaning the social rules we have created in order to not trigger them unnecessarily won't apply to engineered conscious beings.
but it is still a physical thing carrying out a function that can be mathematically described, and there is no reason in principle why a different thing cannot be built to carry out that same function.
Possibly, we still don't understand everything yet. There might be some quantum effect uncertainty involved, which means you can describe it statistically, but reproducing it is a bit more challenging. But those details aside, it does seem theoretically possible to construct a brain replica.
Which doesn't mean that thing would a anything like a computer. Just because we can build it doesn't mean it's a computer.
o know that we'd first need to properly analyze exactly what it means to feel, before we can know if such a function can be implemented on a turing machine or not.
We know that you need consciousness of some kind to feel, as emotions are internal states. A turing machine does not ascribe "meaning" (I'm using these terms in the broadest possible sense here) to its internal states, so it can't "feel" in any sense that would even resemble what we mean by it.
And again, emulation is not the real thing. A good actor can display an emotion as good or better as someone actually experiencing it. And yet I'm sure you'd agree that playing Romeo on stage and being in love are two entirely seperate things.
You can certainly use genetic algorithms, say, to create a machine that lights an LED labelled "fear" if you show it pictures of, say, spiders. But if you claim that this means the machine has an emotion, then you and I have very, very different understandings of these basic terms.
What is the functional difference between an emotion and a simulated emotion anyway? If the robot feels sad, then it is sad.
The difference between a simulation and the real thing is appearance vs. existence.
A simulated emotion would not be an internal state, but merely an outward representation of one. The robot would not feel sad, it would simply act as if it were.
You might as well dismiss human emotions as mere illusory products of chemical processes in the brain.
The fact that experiencing an emotion is different from describing one in a textbook doesn't make the experience illusory.
If you make a computer out of huge piles of lego so the logic gates work the same, is that an exact copy? No. But it can run the same software.
You are missing the point.
Lego or silicon is just a different implementation of the same concept.
Brains and silicon do not share the same conceptual design.
The fact that the software that runs on a brain isn't written in anything like the programming languages we understand, or maybe could ever understand, doesn't stop it from being an entity of information processing that can be replicated by any sufficiently powerful computer.
I invite you to update your knowledge on how the brain works with more recent research. From what I gather (mind you, I'm not a scientist in this area) the brain is not just a powerful computer. It is not running software of any kind. It's not a matter of programming language, but of completely different concepts.
I'm not enough of both an expert on the subject and a science writer to make the important arguments in a paragraph or two, so I'll have to leave the argument at this. Everything recent I've read on the subject indicates that the "brain is like a computer" model is much like Newtonian physics - an interesting approximation that is useful for some superficial estimates, but once you look closer you find that a paradigm change is required and the equivalent of quantum physics is just being started on.
And for the other side: Computers are not unlimited processing engines. They have built-in restrictions and assumptions that are fine for what we're using them for, but do not necessarily translate to other entities.
Care to post a link to this revolutionary new research debunking physicalism? I'd have thought it'd have made the news.
I didn't doubt physicalism.
For a while, the thought that brains are just highly sophisticated computers was "in". Then additional research found that brains are quite unlike computers in almost every way. Both do process and store information, but the how is about as different as it gets. Dyson, Bennett, Jaynes, Rucker, Stapp, Hawkins et al have all written interesting books about fragments of this larger body of knowledge.
and a sufficiently perfect emulation of such functions would constitute "feeling" just as much
Uh, no. A sufficiently good map of an area is still a map. Unless you re-define "sufficiently perfect emulation" to mean "exact copy", at which point it ceases to be an emulation.
But that is an important distinction to make, given that consciousness is - to the best of our knowledge - an emergent property.
What if the only way to achieve the artificial intelligence necessary for them to be useful in their intended role is through processes which mimic biological development?
I know people who suffer from the bugs of these systems. Depression, bipolar disorder, stuff like that. If you intentionally create a being with these faults, you are a monster, on par with serial rapists.
That said, I also believe there is a difference between emotions and simulations of emotions, and I don't see why we would need the former. AI research used to be about mimicking humans, that was a fad for some time. It's long over, AFAIK. So, basically, unless you have some facts and evidence to support your core assumption, that this is the only way, the rest of the argument is moot.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an easy question. Incompetent bosses and co-workers. Everything else is stuff you can learn, work around or fix.
Disclaimer: I am an IT Security professional.
It all depends on your thread scenario. Most of the smaller side-projects I work on are of no interest to any entity able to intercept the data transfers, so I don't mind storing stuff in, say, Evernote or Dropbox where it is more convenient to do so.
The stuff that the survival of my small company depends on, running my own servers is worth the effort. For my holiday pictures, iCloud is perfectly acceptable.
You've not worked in a corporation, have you?
When the going gets tough, the CEO will be the last to feel it. Lots of regular employees, many working in parts of the corporation having nothing to do with the fraudulent action, will feel it first.
If you want to hit the C-Level, you need to make a criminal case and accuse them directly.
Surely Mortgage Investors Corporation pulled in far more than $7.5 Million with this fraud.
Got any evidence for that?
Usually, damages are calculated so that they take away any profit gained from the action and then some. For example, in patent law cases, the penalty is defined as "up to three times the amount found or assessed".
The Internet is a huge place, much, much larger than The Web.
There is room for proprietary protocols and applications that only work with the servers/data of their providers. Oh wait, they all failed in the past.
So you try to latch your proprietary crap on to the medium that succeeded because of its free and open nature. Yeah, that's going to work.
In days past, people like the Firefox developers would make a stand and refuse to support this crap, standard or not. These days, sadly, I'm not so sure.
I'll exit at this point because we're down to ad hominem attacks and that's a sign all the real arguments have been exchanged.
The Google results are all from the USA, this story is from Germany. Maybe you spot the disconnect yourself, or maybe you're one of the people who automatically assume that everything on /. has to be about the US.
Because some terrorists would make a world-record RC plane to crash into a building... suuuure. Sorry, your argument doesn't pass the giggle test.
Some quick research indicates that it takes about 100kg of carefully placed explosives to do a controlled demolition on a building the size of the BILD HQ. Bringing it down in an impact explosion would take considerably more.
And that's assuming you get high-quality explosives. McVeigh detonated 2.4 tons of explosives to (mostly) bring down the Murrah.
Show me the RC plane that carries two tons and I will agree that we have a real threat there.
Some quick research says that 2 kg is considered a high payload for an RC plane, and the largest one I could find any reference to at all is 20 kg.
Yes, that's a bit of explosives. It'll cause a mess.
Yet, remember that this is an impact explosion. Most of the force will go out into the open air if you, for example, crash it against a bridge. Against almost any target, going there and placing the explosives would a) do more damage and b) don't require an RC plane.
The ICE train would shrug it off. They're designed to be hit by tree branches and not bother. At worst, the front window would break, at absolute worst, the driver would be hurt. Nothing would happen to the train or the passengers.
Aircraft taking off? First, nothing is as closely monitored as the airspace above an airport. Two, I don't think hitting it would be very easy.
Both highly unlikely scenarios. And they both don't fall under "infrastructure". :-)
That's paranoid nonsense.
The best friend of the government are paranoid idiots who paint everything in conspiracy theory pictures, because thanks to them, if anything really evil is going on, the warners won't be taken seriously.
It takes only one RC plane combined with an official state ceremony to wreak havoc on a scale which can be a threat to the state.
Power is too distributed in any western country for that. Luttwak debunked your claim in 1968.
You could blow up parliament and the state wouldn't be threatened. Sure, it would be in shock and all that, but nothing important would stop to function and we'd simply elect a new parliament the next month.
I wonder if the German government stores a database of every one of their citizens phone?
They don't need to. If you have a court order, the ISPs (which do have such databases) will provide the details you need.
Why can the Germans catch Islamic extremists using remote control planes, but the American government cannot catch Islamic extremists using pressure cookers?
Because, if you read TFA, these guys had been under observation for a year already. Basically, one of two things happened:
Either, the police decided that they won't learn anything new by further observation, or discover any more parts of the network, so to wrap things up and close the case, they arrested the guys and called it a day.
Or, politicians in charge needed something to distract. You see, they always keep stuff in store for that purpose. Pispers says it very nicely (on a different topic):
http://youtu.be/qRWAyM26YV8?t=5m42s (english subs)
They could shut down the BILD HQ for a day or two.
Unlikely. This is the HQ:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel-Springer-Hochhaus
With an RC plane and whatever it can carry in explosives, you can at best make a mess of the reception area.
They could attack government people and do significant harm to infrastructure.
Which infrastructure can you harm with an RC plane and the tiny amount of explosives it can carry? A wooden footbridge in the Black Forest?
As for the government people, given the current government we have (which is much like that of any other western country these days), any attack on pretty much any of them would be a benefit to the country.
No, he did not.
The most important thing you can learn in history is the difference between causation and occasion. Several of the european powers were already looking for war and would have taken any other excuse to start it. Against any other backdrop of politics, the assassination would've been headlines for two days and then forgotten.
Saying that Princip started WW1 is like saying that Caesar conquered Britain: A useful shortcut but as "Caesar" really only led the army that did the actual conquering so did Princip only provide the spark that ignited the fire others had been busy building up for many years.
hush. Don't bring facts into politics, it only makes things messy and complicated.
Evil technology, bombs, terrorists, the police keeps us safe - what else do you need to know, citizen?
Time to move away from Firefox, it seems, and I've been using it since long before it had that name.
Why? Because it's going down the bloatware road that already destroyed Open Office. If you want 3D or video conferences, or kitchen sinks or coffee machines in your browser, a plugin is the proper way to go, period.
I don't want it. It want to display HTML pages. That includes Javascript and CSS and stuff, but why the f&%$! does it even have a plugin system if every newfangled crap gets thrown into the core code?
Firefox is taking up 650 MB right now. Yeah, that's with a bunch of tabs open, but still. 650 fucking MB to surf the web. It is by far the most memory-hungry app I have open all the time. The next in the list (Mail) clocks in at 160 MB, that's less than a quarter.
No, thank you. I don't want any additional crap in my browser.
Who gets to decide what is "absolutely non-disputable"?
There is such a thing as established facts.
There have been a number of extensive court cases in Germany where the Holocaust-deniers on trial had ample opportunity to present any actual evidence they have.
You - like them - make a pseudo-argument that they're a repressed minority opinion. They're not. This is not a question of opinion, but of historic fact, and its misrepresentation for political reasons.
the path from "you cannot praise the Nazis" to "you cannot criticize the government" is steep and slippery.
That's so crazy you should get your head examined.
First: The laws are not about not praising the Nazis, they are a lot more specific and revolve around actions and statements of fact, not about voicing an opinion. You can say "I think the Nazis were great" on public TV in Germany and you won't get jailed.
Second: We have laws providing you the right to critizise the government, right in our constitution.
Third: The slope between these two only exists in your imagination.
Ironically Snowden will be "free" in Venezuela, but the Venezuelan people are not.
Are we really more free - or have we just been fooled more successfully into thinking we are?
Ok, so you're just talking about how the brain is not just a turing machine.
More precisely, I'm talking about how the brain is not just a machine.
Physicalism means everything that is exists within the realms of physics and let's forget about magic and souls and higher beings.
Mechanism means that everything can be explained with deterministic cause-and-effect chains, and things like randomness and free will are just an appearance of complexity.
I don't doubt physicalism, to the best of our current knowledge it holds true. Mechanism, on the other hand, has been on its deathbed ever since Einstein made his famous quote about the dice.
The limit of a map as accuracy approaches unity is an exact copy of the territory,
There is still a difference you can't get away with: The map will be in a different place. The map, even if it is a 1:1 copy, never is the territory.
Maybe I should've said that no matter how detailled and precise it describes the dishes, you shouldn't eat the menu.
Likewise, whatever function it is that constitutes "feeling", if we built something that perfectly carried out that function, or a function sufficiently similar to it, then it's more accurate to say that we built a thing that feels (perhaps not exactly like a human feels, but feeling nonetheless), than merely a thing that simulates feeling.
You still assume that emotions are a function. I claim it isn't. The details are still poorly understood, but emotions seem to be parts of a bigger network encompassing adaptive states and learnt reactions, processing shortcuts and acquired traits. What all that means is that it is unlikely that you will be able to isolate an emotion from everything else going on in the brain. Basically, you can't create true emotions without creating an entire brain-body replicate with consciousness, memory, education etc. etc. etc.
At which point you're building a human being, not a robot.
Last I checked, the so-called "hard problem" of "phenomenal consciousness", to which the question of emergence applies, was still an open issue, with competing answers to emergentism ranging from total skepticism (there really is no such thing, it's a confused idea) to refinements of panpsychism (such as panexperientialism, panprotopsychism, and panprotoexperientialism); and the easier problem of "access consciousness" was considered a mere triviality now, easily understood in mechanistic terms.
That's a mouthful and I admit I had to look up a term or two. I'm not really sure how any of this relates to the original point, though. If consciousness can be constructed by any means, I hold it to be reasonable to assume that we can engineer it as well, and not just duplicate humans. If we can engineer it, there is no reason to include the bugs of the naturally evolved system. Meaning the social rules we have created in order to not trigger them unnecessarily won't apply to engineered conscious beings.
but it is still a physical thing carrying out a function that can be mathematically described, and there is no reason in principle why a different thing cannot be built to carry out that same function.
Possibly, we still don't understand everything yet. There might be some quantum effect uncertainty involved, which means you can describe it statistically, but reproducing it is a bit more challenging. But those details aside, it does seem theoretically possible to construct a brain replica.
Which doesn't mean that thing would a anything like a computer. Just because we can build it doesn't mean it's a computer.
o know that we'd first need to properly analyze exactly what it means to feel, before we can know if such a function can be implemented on a turing machine or not.
We know that you need consciousness of some kind to feel, as emotions are internal states. A turing machine does not ascribe "meaning" (I'm using these terms in the broadest possible sense here) to its internal states, so it can't "feel" in any sense that would even resemble what we mean by it.
And again, emulation is not the real thing. A good actor can display an emotion as good or better as someone actually experiencing it. And yet I'm sure you'd agree that playing Romeo on stage and being in love are two entirely seperate things.
You can certainly use genetic algorithms, say, to create a machine that lights an LED labelled "fear" if you show it pictures of, say, spiders. But if you claim that this means the machine has an emotion, then you and I have very, very different understandings of these basic terms.
What is the functional difference between an emotion and a simulated emotion anyway? If the robot feels sad, then it is sad.
The difference between a simulation and the real thing is appearance vs. existence.
A simulated emotion would not be an internal state, but merely an outward representation of one. The robot would not feel sad, it would simply act as if it were.
You might as well dismiss human emotions as mere illusory products of chemical processes in the brain.
The fact that experiencing an emotion is different from describing one in a textbook doesn't make the experience illusory.
If you make a computer out of huge piles of lego so the logic gates work the same, is that an exact copy? No. But it can run the same software.
You are missing the point.
Lego or silicon is just a different implementation of the same concept.
Brains and silicon do not share the same conceptual design.
The fact that the software that runs on a brain isn't written in anything like the programming languages we understand, or maybe could ever understand, doesn't stop it from being an entity of information processing that can be replicated by any sufficiently powerful computer.
I invite you to update your knowledge on how the brain works with more recent research. From what I gather (mind you, I'm not a scientist in this area) the brain is not just a powerful computer. It is not running software of any kind. It's not a matter of programming language, but of completely different concepts.
I'm not enough of both an expert on the subject and a science writer to make the important arguments in a paragraph or two, so I'll have to leave the argument at this. Everything recent I've read on the subject indicates that the "brain is like a computer" model is much like Newtonian physics - an interesting approximation that is useful for some superficial estimates, but once you look closer you find that a paradigm change is required and the equivalent of quantum physics is just being started on.
And for the other side: Computers are not unlimited processing engines. They have built-in restrictions and assumptions that are fine for what we're using them for, but do not necessarily translate to other entities.
Care to post a link to this revolutionary new research debunking physicalism? I'd have thought it'd have made the news.
I didn't doubt physicalism.
For a while, the thought that brains are just highly sophisticated computers was "in". Then additional research found that brains are quite unlike computers in almost every way. Both do process and store information, but the how is about as different as it gets. Dyson, Bennett, Jaynes, Rucker, Stapp, Hawkins et al have all written interesting books about fragments of this larger body of knowledge.
and a sufficiently perfect emulation of such functions would constitute "feeling" just as much
Uh, no. A sufficiently good map of an area is still a map. Unless you re-define "sufficiently perfect emulation" to mean "exact copy", at which point it ceases to be an emulation.
But that is an important distinction to make, given that consciousness is - to the best of our knowledge - an emergent property.
What if the only way to achieve the artificial intelligence necessary for them to be useful in their intended role is through processes which mimic biological development?
I know people who suffer from the bugs of these systems. Depression, bipolar disorder, stuff like that. If you intentionally create a being with these faults, you are a monster, on par with serial rapists.
That said, I also believe there is a difference between emotions and simulations of emotions, and I don't see why we would need the former. AI research used to be about mimicking humans, that was a fad for some time. It's long over, AFAIK. So, basically, unless you have some facts and evidence to support your core assumption, that this is the only way, the rest of the argument is moot.