Ethical/Moral issues of AI

HI All.
I am writing a research paper on aritificial intelligence and while the whole thing (the paper that is) is basically done, my teacher asked me to write something about moral/ethical aspects of creating an intelligent machine (and at this point I assume a situation in which we are in fact able to create an intelligent machine). The questions she wants me to answer are things like: 1. Should we create an intelligent machine (in moral/ethical sense)? 2. Would the machines have the same rights as humans do? These are the two biggies I need to answer. If you could share your ideas about it that would be great; it would be even better if you know any books/journals/periodicals/magazines or things of that nature I could reffer to, but mainly I'm looking for what you have to say about it. Thanks for all your help.

Q

Where's Simon?

what?!?!?!?!?!

There's a guy in this forum named Simon. Has a strong resemblance to David Bowie. He loves philosophical stuff.

I have a really ignorant opinion on the matter, which is that debating things like this is a waste of time because a machine will never be able to think on it's own. No matter what, it's going to have to work off some programmed instruction. It's like trying to invent a perpetual motion machine. Close but never achieved.

Thankfully I don't even care whether or not we will ever be able to create an intelligent machine (even though my opinion is just opposite of yours). All I need is "What if..." kind of thing :D

Well, now that you've planted the seed, I'm sure I'll come up with some thoughts in the near future. I've never really thought about it, so I don't know. But I'll try to pretend like it can happen and deal with the "now what?" aspect of it.

Quote:

---

Where's Simon?

---

Here I am!

I would say that the rights of an intelligent machine would depend on whether it had emotions or not. Could a machine (intelligent or not) ever be said to be suffering? What is suffering exactly. Could a machine ever be created that could really suffer (not just simulated behaviour)?

If such a device could be shown to really have emotional drives then I guess some form of "human" rights are in order.

When you get to human level intelligence new issues arise...for example, is it right that an intelligent devioce be owned? Should such a machine be allowed to control it's own environment even if there is a risk that it might terminate itself?

Quote:

---

Should such a machine be allowed to control it's own environment even if there is a risk that it might terminate itself?

---

Or others...

what if by giving computers the ability to evolve, they out evolve us?

I just want one like R2D2 that shows jumpy holograms with lots of static :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by beachbum
I just want one like R2D2 that shows jumpy holograms with lots of static :)

---

... and makes noises that make him loveable. :)

Quote:

---

what if by giving computers the ability to evolve, they out evolve us?

---

In such an event, the human race should offer itself into servitude of the superior beings. This token of respect might be enough to convince them that we're worth keeping around rather than destroying altogether and it would free them up from menial tasks so that they might concentrate on the pursuit of perfection.

Ho boy have you made a mistake!!!

Quick, close the thread before Kedaman sees it! :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm

In such an event, the human race should offer itself into servitude of the superior beings. This token of respect might be enough to convince them that we're worth keeping around rather than destroying altogether and it would free them up from menial tasks so that they might concentrate on the pursuit of perfection.

---

Somehow I don't think that would be likely. Mankind has been undisputed top of the food chain for so long there's no way it would go into servitude.

Besides, any species more evolved than us is not likely to just arbitrarily exterminate another. Unless you believe everything you see in American films, in which case you'll know that we'll never lose 'cos Will Smith will save the day. :)

Quote:

---

Besides, any species more evolved than us is not likely to just arbitrarily exterminate another.

---

The dominant species will keep alive those subordinate species that are useful. No more, no less.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arbiter


Somehow I don't think that would be likely. Mankind has been undisputed top of the food chain for so long there's no way it would go into servitude.

Besides, any species more evolved than us is not likely to just arbitrarily exterminate another. Unless you believe everything you see in American films, in which case you'll know that we'll never lose 'cos Will Smith will save the day. :)

---

Assuming that the artificial intelligence machines are pursuing perfection and in order for that to happen, people have to become servile, then how does that happen?

Personally, I'm not unselfish enough to become servile to a machine even if it is better than me. I don't think people will be much different in the future. So are we going to have armies of police to force people to do this? Will human nature change to make us more "enlightened?"

If servile is working an office job, then it's just the thought of it I won't like, because I'm doing that anyway (well, I would be if I could find a job).

I'm just curious about the path to this, more than the end result.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm

The dominant species will keep alive those subordinate species that are useful. No more, no less.

---

You say that as if you're the ruling authority on advanced species, which is quite impressive as we've not come across any yet and therefore you have nothing to base that statement on.

Quote:

---

Personally, I'm not unselfish enough to become servile to a machine even if it is better than me. I don't think people will be much different in the future. So are we going to have armies of police to force people to do this? Will human nature change to make us more "enlightened?"

---

Something tells me that I don't think we'll have much choice in the matter. If this hypothetical, artificial life form becomes our interlectual superior and has the means to carry out it's whims, we may be forced into servitude or merely eliminated.

Would we not be happy to serve such grand machines? Perhaps some of their brilliance would rub off on us.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm

Something tells me that I don't think we'll have much choice in the matter. If this hypothetical, artificial life form becomes our interlectual superior and has the means to carry out it's whims, we may be forced into servitude or merely eliminated.

Would we not be happy to serve such grand machines? Perhaps some of their brilliance would rub off on us.

---

That may be true about being forced. I don't know if we'll retain our stubbornness and fight to the death (and lose because we are truly inferior) or accept our fate.

But, I am certain that there will be many who are not happy to serve. Some will be, but not all. Some people like to be in charge and when they're challenged they are far from happy.

But again, we're talking a ways into the future. People may become more logic driven by then. For now, those kind of people are outnumbered by the reactionary driven.

Arbiter

Quote:

---

You say that as if you're the ruling authority on advanced species, which is quite impressive as we've not come across any yet and therefore you have nothing to base that statement on.

---

Look around you. Who are the dominant species on our planet? For thousands of years, the onyl animals we had any respect for were those that were forced into servitude.

Recently, we have become concerned with maintaining ecosystems and food chains but not for their benefit, let me assure you. We are concerned only for ourselves. If the extinction of a particular species will have adverse effects on the environment that we live in, we worry about it.

However, would a mechanistic species, one that was not dependant on any ecosystem, care for other species dying out? I doubt it.

Undying loyalty and servitude would be our best bet. I would be first in the queue, prostating myself on my hands and knees, begging for my life.

Quote:

---

But, I am certain that there will be many who are not happy to serve. Some will be, but not all. Some people like to be in charge and when they're challenged they are far from happy.

---

We will probably be bred for docility and servitude. Genetically engineered slaves. That's if it's worth their effort.

What path took us there?

The path of domination.

OK, I guess what I'm asking is did humans in support of the machines get control of society and make other humans servile? Did the machines get control of society and pull a Terminator movie on us?

I agree that domination is the key, but I don't see it happening without humans doing it to themselves. After all, these machines won't invent themselves.

So the path would almost have to be a group of humans (knowingly or unknowingly) dominating the rest at some point while the machines became smart enough or powerful enough to do without the humans.

I guess an other option would be that the machines seemed to be under control and suddenly enough of them became capable of independent function unexpectedly and from that point on we were powerless to do anything about it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Arbiter

Look around you. Who are the dominant species on our planet? For thousands of years, the onyl animals we had any respect for were those that were forced into servitude.

Recently, we have become concerned with maintaining ecosystems and food chains but not for their benefit, let me assure you. We are concerned only for ourselves. If the extinction of a particular species will have adverse effects on the environment that we live in, we worry about it.

However, would a mechanistic species, one that was not dependant on any ecosystem, care for other species dying out? I doubt it.

Undying loyalty and servitude would be our best bet. I would be first in the queue, prostating myself on my hands and knees, begging for my life.

---

We're the only sentient species on the planet, and we harp on constantly about freedom. You think people would just lie down as soon as they meet a species who's better than them?

I wouldn't. Of course, you'll get some throwing themselves prostrate on the floor but I think the majority would not cede their freedom to another quite so willingly...

Quote:

---

I wouldn't. Of course, you'll get some throwing themselves prostrate on the floor but I think the majority would not cede their freedom to another quite so willingly...

---

Well, I would work under cover and sabatage the human attempts at resistance in the hope of finding favour from our intellectual superiors.

Hopefully the would keep those alive who proved their servitude and loyalty.

I think it would be cool to make an AI that was afraid of a great many things...
then have them on our palm pilots, we could then make a game of scaring them half to death,
like put digital hot pokers next to their fake eyes and such.
It could be great fun.

We would also keep reminding them that they will never be able to taste
ice cream with chocolate on it. Those AIs will be sooo jealous.

:p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPicasso
I think it would be cool to make an AI that was afraid of a great many things...
then have them on our palm pilots, we could then make a game of scaring them half to death,
like put digital hot pokers next to their fake eyes and such.
It could be great fun.

We would also keep reminding them that they will never be able to taste
ice cream with chocolate on it. Those AIs will be sooo jealous.

:p

---

ROFL.... too funny.

The religious types are likely to have a different opinion on this.

As an Ayn Rand disciple, I view human rights as being derived from the basic nature of Homo Sapiens, not due to a mystical belief in our being created by a god. Consistent with this view, I believe that our rights are derived from our ambitions, our desire to survive, our consciousness, et cetera. Therefore an intellignt machine with ambition, consciousness, a desire for survival, et cetera should have rights similar if not equivalent to ours.

If you view our rights as derived from a mystical creator, then you would have no reason to grant similar rights to a machine, no matter how intelligent or conscious. You might have the same attitude toward intelligent extra terrestrials.

I cannot imagine any reason why somebody would object to creating an intelligent machine. To me, the search for knowledge and the development of ever more sophisticated devices are noble goals. Those who wish to limit science and technology are Luddites and superstitious morons. Can anybody in this day and age not revere science and technology for all of the wonders it has made available to the average man? The average person owes an unpayable debt to science and technology. A lot of them would have died 10-30 years earlier due to lack of medical technology and modern plumbing. None would live the comfortable lives provided in the 20th century.

If science is on the trail of AI, leave them alone and wait for the benefits to accrue.

Why assume that science and technology are likely to cause future problems, when they have provided solutions to problems for hundreds of years.

Please no nonsense about nuclear, chemical, and biochemical weapons. The madmen of this world do not need science to help them destroy. They can do a good job with ordinary explosives and machetes. Consider what goes on in some of the primitive African countries.

Ok, having read NONE of that, I will say:

AI in terms of terminator/matrix-style machines that 'think', is almost beyond possibility. I won't say impossible, because you never know. But what a machine lacks in order to evolve to intelligence, (I believe) is any sort of evolutionary goal, and a lack of self-awareness.

All sentient beings have at least the purpose of staying alive. Since this does not mean anything to a computer, it has no need to stay alive. It's feasible that we could give a machine some artificial purpose, say, don't ever turn off. That means nothing to the computer, but we can pretend that by turning off, the computer will 'die', and hence it has an artificial purpose.

Also, we have not developed any form of infinitie memory space. I believe humans have an almost infinite memory space. Since this does not yet exist, it is not possible for a computer to ever contain the level of knowledge a human (or other creature) may possess. It lacks the ability to learn from experiene, except by artificial algorithms.

So, forget the moral issues, it won't happen in your lifetime... ;)

Id like to say taht humans have great potential they just dont use it.
Right now people are idiots. But this might very well change and if we lived up to our full potential I think it might be very hard for any species to achieve that level. Course that'll take a few million years :p

Also if a war breaks out then it would still be kind of even. Machines can easily be disabled for a wide radius using things such as EMP shockwaves. These would have to be worked on to be used as warfare weapons. Humans of course, have very frail bodies and can be easily killed.










On another note, how can machines evolve?

I couldn't agree with you more, Guv. It's not machines that scare me though, it's people.

Simonm said this:

Quote:

---

Well, I would work under cover and sabatage the human attempts at resistance in the hope of finding favour from our intellectual superiors

---

He won't be alone in these sentiments. However, I don't think he is saying this to provoke us. I think he truly believes it. He is convinced that he is right and willing to inflict his beliefs forcibly (I assume violently if necessary, although I may be wrong about that) even though he may be absolutely wrong about the ultimate outcome. In theory, the machines may be "perfect," but in practice they might be quite flawed.

In the world we currently live in there are a lot of people who do business in this fashion rather than with an (cliche) "I'm OK, you're OK" mentality.

That truly frightens me and when I think about that I am very thankful I live where I live regardless of how much I complain about it.

What I'm saying is that there are a great many things we know nothing about. What we consider to be "perfect" may ultimately cause the universe to collapse and the existence of everything to be gone forever leaving only a void. I suppose that could be considered "perfection" because what can be wrong with nothing?

As long as yuo can watarcool tehm! Ovarclock tehm to 5Ghz! w000000000000000t

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aerials
On another note, how can machines evolve?

---

They can't, that's the point. :)

Quote:

---

How can machines evolve?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rjlohan

They can't, that's the point. :)

---

I'm not so sure about that. I guess it depends on the definition of evolution.

Couldn't a computer become smarter, build better machines that build better factories that build better machines?

If a computer can be programmed in such a way as to "learn" then why wouldn't this be possible?

Machines aren't going to just evolve themselves into self-aware, conscious, sentient systems. Saying that they're not self-aware yet so they're never going to evolve into intelligent life is a bit strange if you ask me. We are going to have to give them a jump-start. Self-awareness is a very loosely defined term, anyway. It means different things to different people, as previous debates (read: arguments) have shown.

Exactly what 'need to stay alive' does a bag of flesh, bone and blood with an electrochemical control system have? Unless you believe our consciousness to exist outside of our bodies, or be in some way mystical, there is no reason to assume that we are anything more than complex machines.

Human memory, and the memory of any other sentient being, is certainly not limitless. The capacity of most people's short-term memory is quite predictable (with some greater, some lesser), and the long term memory is just huge, not limitless. Our brains constantly rewire themselves as a mechanism for storing knowledge. Oft-travelled pathways become reinforced.

There are methods in development for storing and processing larger and larger quantities of data. You can, in theory, store a bit in the spin on an electron. That's a lot of data in a very small area.

Exactly how much 'knowledge' do you think a fruit fly has? We have already built AIs that surpass the level of a basic insect. Would you consider the life of the AI more valuable than the life of the fruit fly?

I'm not sure exactly how you would expect a computer to do anything without 'artificial' algorithms (as if there are natural algorithms). Why is learning through an algorithmic, or, abstracted to a greater degree, heuristic method any less valid than the way we learn? How do we learn, in your opinion? AIs, in their primitive current state, are quite capable of basic learning of domain-specific knowledge. It's no Einstein, but the principles are there.

Is there any reason anyone thinks it's impossible/improbable that isn't based on some kind of flowery view of consciousness as a mystical gift from above? Bearing in mind that, from the majority scientific point of view, we all evolved from algae.

Of course, lots of people like to say "they can never be greater than their creators", the logic of which I find a little hard to fathom.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cafeenman


I'm not so sure about that. I guess it depends on the definition of evolution.

Couldn't a computer become smarter, build better machines that build better factories that build better machines?

If a computer can be programmed in such a way as to "learn" then why wouldn't this be possible?

---

Ok - I was being a little pessimistic - I agree with you. If a computer can be programmed to learn, then they could evolve. And therein lies the difficulty. Learning involves experience, and finding better ways to attain some goal, that's my belief anyway, and it applies to ALL learning. Now in terms of computers, since they have no goals, how can they learn? Only by being given artificial goals, such as 'don't turn off', or whatever. And then you need to have the computer be aware that it ****ed up somehow in trying to attain that goal, and so on. That's all fine, possible, I reckon. But, the computer won't be able to develop NEW goals at any time, only be given new artificial ones, which have some meaning attached to them by humans.

Thus, no evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rjlohan
But, the computer won't be able to develop NEW goals at any time, only be given new artificial ones

---

Is this just a completely unfounded statement? It's looking that way to me.

hmm this is interesting