Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rights of Artificial Intelligence

Rate this topic


VECT

Recommended Posts

As for the claims that if-then statements do not lead to choices: 

...

 

That would be me...

 

...

If one considers "choice" to be the selection of one possible course of action out of many alternatives, according to its relation to one's goals, then Deep Blue was capable of true choice.  Granted, a chess-playing computer does not have much volition (a spider probably has more), but if that is the standard then we've already done it.

...

 

I consider "choice" to to be a voluntary selection of one possible course of action out of many alternatives, which is why I claim that if/then statements (programmed responses) don't count.  Neither would programming a random response, although that would come closer to simulating what a human might do.

 

...

And this is why I think that innovation (which is a direct result of conceptualization) is more essential to our "humanity" than choice itself is.

...

 

I would restate this as, innovation validates that real choice is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I'm pretty sure one can choose without thinking, there's plenty evidence of that on youtube.

...

 

One can act without thinking, but making a choice requires the consideration of more than one possible action; at a bare minimum a decision to do something, or nothing.  Dominos don't choose to fall into the next in line.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does making a choice really require the consideration of more than one possible action?

 

You can say that making a choice means the entity making the choice have more than one possible action available to him/her/it in reality, but does it have to entail that the entity itself always consider and weight these choices before choosing a course of action?

 

I think that reality always offer a person more than one choice in any situation, but a person doesn't have to consider his alternatives before he/she acts, the person can just..act.

 

(above is not my personal endorsement for act without thinking and I shall not be held liable for any Darwin Award winners due to reading my post)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure one can choose without thinking, there's plenty evidence of that on youtube.

But is that choice?  If choice is the selection of one alternative out of many, through some teleological comparison, then there is ample evidence of people acting without choice but not choosing without thought.

 

And if every human action must be volitional, regardless of whatever conscious processes did or did not lead to it, then wouldn't that make the growth of your toenails a volitional action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that reality always offer a person more than one choice in any situation, but a person doesn't have to consider his alternatives before he/she acts, the person can just..act.

Yes, I agree that people can simply act; so can spiders.

 

That would be me...

:worry:

 

I consider "choice" to to be a voluntary selection of one possible course of action out of many alternatives, which is why I claim that if/then statements (programmed responses) don't count.

Allow me to elaborate, please; my latter posts from last night are unsatisfactory.

 

A single if/then statement is analogous to a biological reflex action, because in both cases the action (the "then" part) is caused by a single, raw sensation (the "if" part), without any conscious analysis.  I also consider them both to be analogous to any human action devoid of conscious deliberation (i.e. whim-worship, as seen on YouTube).

 

My objection is not to your asserted distinction- a reflex action simply is not the same as a decision- but the generalization that one can never lead to the other.

Allow me to concretize.

---

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)

A chess-playing program, like that of Deep Blue, does not select its next move according to an if/then statement; rather, it "imagines" virtual scenarios which could result from any given move.

For each valid move it generates a list of those moves which would then become valid for its opponent, after which it generates a subsequent list of its own options, and so on and so forth for however-many turns ahead.  After this is complete it has, stored in its memory, a list of all the possibilities which could result from any of the moves which are presently valid.

 

At that point it compares all of those hundreds upon thousands of possibilities against each other, to determine which one would be optimal for the ultimate value (in this case, winning).  Now that strikes me as somewhat similar to a primitive imagination- and yet, if we were to analyze it in further and further detail, we would eventually find nothing more than if/then statements.

 

And who is to say otherwise of your programming or mine?

---

 

Now, I do not literally mean to equate the human mind to a chess-playing computer, any more than I would equate it to a trained animal's.

 

I absolutely mean to say that a mind can be built from layers upon recursive layers of reflexes- and that six billion probably have been, already.

 

The difference is one of arrangement and complexity; not of composition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"....At that point it compares all of those hundreds upon thousands of possibilities against each other, to determine which one would be optimal for the ultimate value (in this case, winning)."

 

The ultimate value is not winning -- it is experiencing the JOY of winning.  The emotion is both the motive and the reward.

 

We can program a computer to win, but we cannot program one to enjoy it.  The pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is what makes life possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is that choice?  If choice is the selection of one alternative out of many, through some teleological comparison, then there is ample evidence of people acting without choice but not choosing without thought.

 

And if every human action must be volitional, regardless of whatever conscious processes did or did not lead to it, then wouldn't that make the growth of your toenails a volitional action?

 

I see your point, my previous example of banging my head against the wall is an example of acting without choice, not choosing without thought.

 

Then here is an example of choosing without rational thought: Impulsive Purchase

 

The buyer choose to purchase that object not because he/she considered alternatives rationally, but because of how that object appeal directly to his/her emotions. In fact, a lot of female shoppers (and maybe some male) is able to consider alternative items base solely on their emotional response with no appeal to the rational faculty. This would be a clear example of choosing without thinking.

 

I understand "consider" is to weight the choices based on some value. Now that value could be reason, but it doesn't have to be. The subject of this argument goes back to whether or not a volitional AI can exist without a rational faculty; Volition might not be able to exist solely by itself without some sort of weighting generated by another faculty in order for it to evaluate choices, but that other faulty need not be reason.

 

A volitional AI then would be able to just have free-will to choose between pre-programmed instincts; a rational faulty would be optional for it's volition to exist.

Edited by VECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can program a computer to win, but we cannot program one to enjoy it.  The pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is what makes life possible.

 

The pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, that's your standard of life?

 

Oh that's easy, I can program something to that effect on Java within the hour.

Edited by VECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food for thought.  Mark Tilden

 

Some may be familiar with the robots created by Tilden.   There are many videos of BEAM type analog robots, and Tilden now sells robots for commercial use and not just toys.

 

I would say that there is a distinction, and always will be, between digital/binary representation of life and analog life (which is what we are).  I speculate that true AI will follow the analog line that he is pursuing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Allow me to elaborate..

 

Allow me to follow suit...

 

Pachinko is a Japanese slot machine/pinball hybrid.  The basic idea is that a ball enters through a top opening and descends through a maze of posts until it reaches the bottom.  At any given point, the ball passes between two posts and hits a single post below, rebounding either left or right towards another pair of posts, and so on, and so on...

 

The movement of the ball is controlled by physics and one might presume that if it were possible to drop the ball on the first post in exactly the same manner every time, the path the ball takes would remain the same, and yet it doesn't.  Even in the enclosed environment of the game, slight variations in speed, pitch, accumulated dust, etc., cause the ball to rebound left or right seemingly randomly.  One might observe that the game presents a series of if/then scenarios in which the ball chooses which way to bounce, but of course the ball has no will to express; it can only fall downwards, trapped in a program it didn't create and cannot avoid playing.

 

So I believe it matters less what apparent choices a lifeless ball or a lifelike AI make along the path they were designed to follow, than the actual choices a human makes about whether or not to follow a path to begin with, and how it feels to suffer or enjoy the consequences of that choice.  A chess-playing program, like that of Deep Blue, doesn't select whether to play the game, or to play it poorly...  it doesn't throw a tantrum if it loses, or care if it wins... it doesn't choose how to behave.  It simply does what it was programmed to do.  In that respect, the OP's AI is equally bound to follow its path either by design or by logic or physics, but never because it wants to.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 In that respect, the OP's AI is equally bound to follow its path either by design or by logic or physics, but never because it wants to.

 

What? I thought the argument of whether or not volition can be artificially reproduced was over.

 

If an AI is volitional, then it acts because it wants to.

 

 

Also @New Budda, interesting link, thanks.

Edited by VECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? I thought the argument of whether or not volition can be artificially reproduced was over.

...

 

We remain in agreement  that If a volitional 'X' can independently support its own life either by being self-sufficient or being able to trade with humans, it has a right to life.  Do intelligent domesticated animals share this right?

 

...

If an AI is volitional, then it acts because it wants to.

...

 

Define want.  I accept that your AI acts volitionally (as do apes), but how does it feel about its actions?

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We remain in agreement  that If a volitional 'X' can independently support its own life either by being self-sufficient or being able to trade with humans, it has a right to life.  Do intelligent domesticated animals share this right?

 

You also brought up ape in the other post. Last time I checked the current view for Objectivist is that known animals so far do not possess the degree of volition required for individual rights. Do you wish to challenge this perception by either proposing that certain animals do possess the degree of volition required for individual rights, or that volition itself is not the sufficient factor for determining whether or not an entity should possess individual rights?

 

The AI for my example is assumed to possess volition to the degree required for individual rights by Objectivism standard.

 

Define want.  I accept that your AI acts volitionally (as do apes), but how does it feel about its actions?

 

Well, if you believe apes possess enough degree of volition to be granted the same Individual Rights as humans by Objectivism standard, then that's another topic.

 

Also your statement I quoted from your previous post does not assume the AI have volition. The want in the context of your statement pertains to volition, not emotion. Because in the context of your statement, if the AI cannot do what it wants, then it can only follow do what is predetermined, or as you put it, "bound to follow its path either by design or by logic or physics".

 

As for emotion, while not relevant to the topic of Rights (unless you wish to propose that emotion is a necessary factor for an entity to possess individual rights), I'll indulge it.

 

Human emotions are activated by accepted principles of personal values, after activation however the aftermath process is physical and pre-programmed.

 

Like wise for a volitional AI, the maker can pre-program emotional responses. The AI volitionally choose it's own values just as humans do that will activate these emotions. The pre-programmed emotional responses will then react to those values in correct situations, again like humans.

 

For such an AI then, would it not feel?

Edited by VECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Last time I checked the current view for Objectivist is that known animals so far do not possess the degree of volition required for individual rights. Do you wish to challenge this perception by either proposing that certain animals do possess the degree of volition required for individual rights, or that volition itself is not the sufficient factor for determining whether or not an entity should possess individual rights?

 

The AI for my example is assumed to possess volition to the degree required for individual rights by Objectivism standard.

...

 

Degree of volition?  Is this not like asking if the light is on or off??

 

At the risk of being criticized for reference to yet another definition:

--

volition: the faculty or power of using one's will.

https://www.google.com/#q=volition

 

volition: the power to make your own choices or decisions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/volition

--

 

'X' has the ability to make a voluntary choice or not, n'est pas?  For example, the distinction of man from apes relies on a ability for rational action regardless those men of who don't act rationally.  To argue that the degree to which 'X' relies on voluntary choice determines whether or not 'X' has a right to life endangers man as well, considering the presumed superiority (by degree) of your AI over any other man.  To support your argument, you would need to indicate that the degree of voluntary choice between man and your AI is less than the degree of voluntary choice between man and apes.

 

Also our agreement is, if a volitional 'X' can independently support its own life either by being self-sufficient or being able to trade with humans, it has a right to life.

 

Even if you claim that volitionally your AI is just another man, any other creature capable of independently supporting its own life by being self-sufficient would have a right to life, yes??

 

Do you now wish to amend our agreement?

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I concur your point on the degree aspect of volition. Whether or not an entity has the power to make choices does seem black and white.

 

Given my previous premises concerning self-sufficiency and volition been the sufficient factor for determining the possession of individual rights, I have no problem extending these principles to an ape, as long as these principles stands the scrutiny of reason.

 

I do not want get into a biological discussion about whether or not apes as a species possess volition. For the sake of argument let's suppose there is this one ape, that does possess volition; then given the above principles, I will say then this specific ape should have individual rights.

 

(Also on a side note, maybe volition isn't a sufficient trait for individual rights, maybe it's just a necessary trait. Volition and reason together makes up sufficiency. Given the example of an volitional AI without a rational faculty, that can only choose between pre-programmed instincts. Also given the fact that Individual Rights of Objectivism are tailored towards an entity that survives by been productive utilizing reason, I would say this is the case.)

 

But back to the main point, yes, if an ape or any other entity have the qualities sufficiently necessary for individual rights, then they should have it. These qualities so far are volition and possibly reason, I welcome any enlightening argument on this topic, the sufficient traits needed for individual rights, which is one of the main reasons why I started this thread.

Edited by VECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For clarity, I'm exploring the logical envelope of recognition for a right to life as a means of justifying man's recognition of your AI for the same.  Consider the following mission statement expressed in the document supporting our current political recognition of a right to life...

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

 

Your AI, created by you, is certainly entitled to being endowed by you a right to life provided, it can independently support its own life either by being self-sufficient or being able to trade with humans.  At this point we are copacetic on this issue and I also welcome the opinion of others...

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil's Advocate,

 

Within the context of this logical envelope the distinction need be drawn between prescriptive law and descriptive law. Being endowed rights by nature is a descriptive arrival to the notion of rights, whereas the application of rights to AI as described is a prescriptive application.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Devil's Advocate:

 

That certainly could be an interpretation of DoI.

 

But, like I posted before, Morality supersedes Politics; this thread centres around the discussion whether or not we, as human begins, should morally recognize the individual rights of a volitional AI, not whether or not the United States' Declaration of Independence can be interpreted to recognize the individual rights of a volitional AI.

 

If the Declaration of Independence can't be interpreted to do what's right, then it has room for improvement.

Edited by VECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a volitional 'X' can independently support its own life either by being self-sufficient or being able to trade with humans, it has a right to life.

 

Is a right to life man made, or discovered by man?

 

If a right to life requires human recognition and endorsement, then VECT or Nicky may recreate themselves and pass their right to life as inheritence.  The Signers of the DoI intentionally removed man as the Creator of this right; and certainly not in the form of an AI.  But if man becomes the Creator then the right to life is endowed and secured by the same author and we have gone full circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Devil's Advocate:

 

I'll explain my current view on the Right to Life, more precisely the distinction between Right to Life (moral) and Right to Life (political). 

 

Right to Life (moral) is the concept that a volitional entity should have the moral sanction to undertake the necessary actions to sustain its life, as necessitated by its nature, without feelings of guilt or condemnation.

 

For a human being it would mean he/she should be morally able to use his/her reason to produce food/cloth/shelter..etc. to sustain his/her life without feelings of guilt about doing so.

 

A human being can arrive at the moral conclusion that he/she have no moral right to live from corrupted metaphysical and epistemological beliefs (most prominent case, religion). An example would be members of a religion or cult believe themselves to be sinners and have no moral right to eat food. They proceed to act out their moral beliefs and consequently starve to death.

 

Right to Life (political) is the concept that a volitional entity in a society should have the politic freedom to undertake actions necessary to sustain its life without force or coercion by fellow members of that same society. US's Declaration of Independence is an example of a document attempting to implement Right to Life (political) politically in a society.

 

 

Politics following Morality means that the law should grant political freedom to an individual to do what is right.

Morality following Politics means that what is morally right for an individual to do is whatever that is dictated by the law.

 

I'm sure I don't have to explain the problem with the latter. There's a reason why the 5 branches of philosophy goes in the order of Metaphysics > Epistemology > Ethics > Politics > Esthetics.

 

And that's also why when you are trying to bring out US's Declaration of Independence, a political instrument, as a support in a moral argument, it's an attempt to lead the donkey by directing the cart; it doesn't work.

 

Declaration of Independence gets a lot of credit for doing what is morally right.

 

But it doesn't dictate what is morally right.

Edited by VECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think morality applies to intelligent machines at all. Besides, it won't have any volition other than what is given to it.

I agree with this.  The high-end gaming computer that I'm typing on is really nothing more than a jumped-up hand held pocket calculator (or abacus).  It's a tool.  No amount of top-down code will ever change this.

 

And to  perhaps expand the discussion, if I were the proverbial Man-from-Mars and landed on earth, the essential cognitive characteristic that I would observe most differentiating man's consciousness from all others is not his rationality but rather it is his irrationality.

 

Our capacity for abstraction endows us with the cognitive equivalent of a  "random number generator" (as touched upon in the pinball post above).  We make many unjustified connections between un-related things and "see" patterns that end up not being there -- and we are largely driven to do so by our bodily needs expressed as emotions.  And in so acting, we often times make spectacular mistakes.

 

But it is our emotional desire to satisfy our physical wanting that drives us to learn from our mistakes, adjust our actions and ultimately acquire the things we value.  When I'm hot, I want to be cooler.  When I'm cold I want to be warmer. When I feel hunger pains, I want food.  When I'm thirsty I want water.  When I'm horny, I want a booty call.

 

Programming an AI to mimic our wants and needs (or what ever wants and needs we assign to it) would not make the AI a living being, much less a conscious one.  It would just be an extension of our self like all our tools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@New Buddha

 

You are making the presupposition that human emotion/urges is a necessary condition for Rights. (Would a trauma victim that lacks emotional response or a geneticlly defected child who couldn't feel normal urges have no right?)

 

You are also making the presupposition that volition itself is somehow not artificially reproducible , and that humans can only mimic outputs of volition, care to discuss your rationale?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...