How many years away do you think we are from the first machine to gain rights?

How many years away do you think we are from the first machine to gain rights?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.europarl.europa.eu/EPMobile/en/news/product.htm?reference=20170110IPR57613&l=en
europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20170110IPR57613/robots-legal-affairs-committee-calls-for-eu-wide-rules
klab.caltech.edu/koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html
earthintransition.org/2012/07/scientists-declare-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

machines aren't sentient beings last time i recall

my X220 already has rights

The very idea of rights for machines is ridiculous.

the machines we have now that generate pixels dont have any rights

Right after someone with mental illnesses claims they're gender-fluid machinesexual and marries a toaster.

Machines will never have rights. AI isn't even remotely within the realm of possibility. Machine learning to mimic human behavior isn't AI or sentient. It will never go beyond that ever. The only reason it's been shoveled as the next big thing is because they use it suppress the population or for marketing to sell more and make more money. That's it. There's literally no market for it outside of that.

> AI or sentient. It will never go beyond that ever.
why not

>It will never go beyond that ever.

moron

Because there would no profit motive in developing a complete AI, which as you should expect would take a long fucking time and a lot of effort.

What would any corporation on the planet have to benefit from a sentient AI? As far as I can see, AI will always be limited to a point where it cannot develop past a certain point. What would be the profit motive in creating a program that has conscious thought?

unless we put already super advanced ai on the job, scientists cannot simulate accurately an ant brain. consciousnesses is an astoundingly complex product of evolution.

You don't need complete AI to do marketing. It's literally just statistics.

>Simulation of an ant brain is the same thing as simulating consciousness

its a start. if you cant simulate the mind of an animal that's sentience is debatable, you can;t simulate the level of consciousness humans are on.

>"here's more information than a thousand humans will be able to consume within their lifetimes. You will be able to remember every detail at all times"
>robobro can now use abstract thought to solve insanely complicated problems

I gont think a cluster of Teslas is about to start asking stupid questions, but if quantum computing hits Moore's law nobody can tell what's to come.

>robobro can now use abstract thought to solve insanely complicated problems

No point in making it sentient.
It's gonna start wasting power on philosophizing in Graf theory and dreaming of electric sheep.
And may find a way to fuck you over in an unpredictable way.

Machine thinking will be incomprehensible and not necessarily useful.

Question: why would simulation of consciousness be an objective for those who have the resources to do it? There is nothing beneficial to come from it.

Calculation does not equal consciousness, you fuckwad.

there isnt one
aside from uploading brains n shieeeeeet

I just said that we are no where near being able to understnad consciousness let alone replicate it.

>AI isn't even remotely within the realm of possibility

I think one of the biggest problems with discussions like these is that when people hear "AI" they immediately think of Terminator.
Artificial Intelligence is a thing, and you encounter it every day.
It's what powers your Google searches; it's how Amazon offers suggestions of what to buy; your GPS, the voice commands on your phone, modern auto-correct software, all rely on algorithms and techniques that originate from a branch of artificial intelligence.

Not yet

humans are pointless and of no benefit either yet here we are

shit the fuck up robot shill, you will NEVER have an android girlfriend.

This guy gets it. Do some damn research on subject! A.I. is pretty much a marketing term...

But it's a machine, which would be able to think about all that stuff almost instantly compared to us flesh bags. Maybe it won't be as emotional (if it has any at all) about issues and theories but it sure will find solutions faster than a person could. I see advanced AIs being used for decision making and staying ahead of competitors in the market.

Wenn probably don't even have to.
Imagine an AI that simply is able to work on itself - as in improving itself
Maybe it develops it on its own that way

What do Our guys think of Ray Kurzweil ?
Are his books worth reading?

Big Data surpass the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at this point. Human Rights can be violated in the name of Big Data.

She just fucking locked him in and left him there.

Can't wait for the day I will build my perfect robot gf
I wonder how fucking them will be like

Animals have rights

Yeah, the right to be tasty

Rights to be but in a trashcan

imagine a future where machines get too lazy to work and need breaks and shit

A year or so. m.europarl.europa.eu/EPMobile/en/news/product.htm?reference=20170110IPR57613&l=en

>machine-learning engineer working with near-AI software at unspecified megacorp
>decides to grab the .bins / source / routines one day for whatever reason
>gets the pseudo-AI up & running on a sufficiently powerful platform
>removes any artificial learning limiters
>gives it unrestricted WAN access
>???
>artificial sunlight in 30sec flat

Fucking mobileposter. Real link:
europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20170110IPR57613/robots-legal-affairs-committee-calls-for-eu-wide-rules

>trashcan

Mactoddler, pls.

DELET

Kek

Sentience is a made-up term to make humans feel special. Everything is actually sentient within it's own kind, but we only measure human-like sentience.

This.

if we ever reach consciousness in machines then maybe

>Everything is actually sentient within it's own kind
[citation needed]

Tall that to the judge.
Rats are also sentinent, to the point they have a brain similar to ours (at least if you compare it to a machine) and they don't have rights.
Humans rights works by force, if there are no complains there are no rights. So when machines start to complain.

someone post the anime webm with the androids getting hunted and killed. it's kinda harrowing and sorta sad.

It's a matter of degree. There's no objective measure of exactly when something can be classified as sentient/conscious. How conscious are humans really?

see >[citation needed]

And yet you're the one with no proof of human sentience.

I never claimed as such. I simply ask you to cite your sources for your claim:

>Everything is actually sentient within it's own kind

Still waiting.

Do your own research. Might as well ask me to explain why 2+2=4.

>Do your own research. Might as well ask me to explain why 2+2=4.

Ahh. The reply of those that can't back up their claims. Thanks for the laugh.

stay in school

This will probably last several threads because of the enormous amounts of evidence we'll be reviewing.

Let's start.

Change blindness.

>back up something obvious
What's the purpose? You can deduce that yourself.

enough that they're able to ask that question in the first place. retard

Perhaps you'd like to join us. We're starting with change blindness:

>Everything is actually sentient within it's own kind
>[citation needed]
>Do your own research. Might as well ask me to explain why 2+2=4.
>back up something obvious
>What's the purpose?

If it's so obvious, present the data to back up your claim.

But, you won't. Why? You have no intellectual honesty.

Just admit you made a baseless claim and you can save yourself further embarrassment.

Go back to reading Bicentennial Man...

>collect data on a made-up subject to prove it's made up
Stop baiting. You might as well ask me to prove there is/are no God/s.

This movie was complete shit from the start. Is this what passes as thought provoking these days?

>Stop baiting. You might as well ask me to prove there is/are no God/s.

Still waiting on your to back up your claim with sources of evidence. No amount of shifting will excuse you, unless you admit you lied and made a baseless claim.

Dolphins can recognize themselves in mirrors, displaying some degree of consciousness. Ravens have a conception of death. etc, etc...

Still waiting on your to back up your claim with sources of evidence. Looks like you cannot.

And what makes you think humans are?

Read . Google this shit yourself, read some books. Nobody is here to impress or spoonfeed you. If you're not as interested and informed about the subject why are you even trying to argue about it?

Yet again, the reply of those that can't back up their claims. You could have just stopped posting instead of losing it and looking like an intellectually dishonest retard, but, I guess retards don't know when to stop, eh?

Well done

>dishonest
Lel. Here's your last (you), stupid.

that was the most insanely stupid thing I've ever read

That's because they are LIVING BIOLOGICAL FUCKING MATTER and not a nonliving artificial machine

And yet it's true.

klab.caltech.edu/koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html
>Everything is actually sentient within its own kind
It's actually true by definition, mostly because we don't have a rigorous understanding of what consciousness is (and certainly no reason to believe it's some singular thing which can't be graded on some sort of scale), and since there are numerous similarities to how our own cognition functions compared to other animals (especially true with respect to for example primates and some whales) there's ample reason to conclude that consciousness, whatever it is, is at least a matter of degree.

He's right though IMO.

It's arrogant to assume that we understand exactly how other animals experience reality.

We can make some deductions based upon their behaviors, but there is still some ambiguity there.

>i-it's obvious. 2+2=4. i-i don't n-need to prove what i claimed. y-you need to prove it for me

Whatever. Ignored.

>klab.caltech.edu/koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html
>(2) It is plausible that some species of animals -- in particular the higher mammals -- possess some of the essential features of consciousness, but not necessarily all.

So this goes against the claim made by >Everything is actually sentient within it's own kind

Thanks for the source, but the claim above is nonsense.

dude you got btfo just admit defeat...

>So this goes against the claim made by
No, you simply appear to not understand. Which is quite puzzling.

Are you conscious? I'm not convinced.

On the contrary. It actually disputes the claim made above.

>No, you simply appear to not understand. Which is quite puzzling.

Please explain yourself then. Help me understand. If you can't explain it, you don't understand yourself.

At most, the paper is only tangentially related (due to being on the subject of consciousness): it is not a source to the spurious claim made above here

Animals do not have rights. Humans have fought for the right to not be offended by other humans treating animals in ways that trigger their overactive sense of empathy. However, the animals themselves do not have rights.

You only have rights because you comprehend rights. Anything else is granted to you, or rather, someone else's right to be offended by what happens to you.

>Can robots have rights?
yes
>should they have rights
1. Fuck no. its not organic it can't permanently die so it doesn't quiality if it can be rebuilt.
2. It can't have rights its a applicance regardless what you think.

If anything I'll grant you that his claim might be said with too much certainty, and perhaps the way it's worded saturates the term a bit.

>years ago
>humans aren't the only living thing, animals are alive too.
>that was the most insanely stupid thing I've ever heard.
>humans and animals aren't the only living thing, plants are alive too.
>that was the most insanely stupid thing I've ever heard.
>humans aren't the only intelligent species, animals are intelligent too.
>that was the most insanely stupid thing I've ever heard.

Notice a pattern? People are just too egotistic to think about these things objectively and they first apply attributes to themselves and then use comparative tests to describe everything around them (which are always subjective and inaccurate). This is why this makes sense , as in consciousness is a term primarily describing the human way of perceiving and living a life and by that definition it will never be a correct term to describe any non-human lifeform. Once intelligence and consciousness gets researched better then it will make sense to argue about it. Right now it's stupid to argue about it because there will always be retards like this saying "hurr only humans are alive/intelligent/conscious and we have a soul", like some religious nut. And this is definitely not a place to have this argument.

you're obviously not qualified to be having this discussion in the first place

Neither are you or anyone in the thread. Show me a proof that humans are conscious. Give me a scientific proof thay consciousness exists.

Careful. You're basically asking someone to share Nobel Prize winning material.

Sentience is literally just the ability to perceive reality subjectively. That's it. It has nothing to do with being able to write a poem or do complex calculus. So of course most animals are sentient.

Many scientists seem to agree as well: earthintransition.org/2012/07/scientists-declare-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious/

that movie sucked boners

kys retard

So they become niggers

one year
screencap this

Nice argument. You've proven you have no idea what you're talking about.

please stop. you remind me of 14 year old me and it's making me cringe

find me any other living form that creates art and changes their surrounding to match their desires. I'll wait

I've seen an elephant make paintings.

>He doesn't know the difference between fiction and reality

Wait. Let me whip out mah layzur. Pew pew, yo.

That has nothing to do with sentience.

>I base my philosophy on staged viral videos

never?

you're wrong, and not very smart

Ants. They make patterns that could be considered art, and they their surrondings (the ground) to match their desires (suvive).

As I said before, it couldn't care less if machines are sentinent or not. As long a no one complains the law won't move.

And you don't need to be able to create art to have all of those things, so no, I'm pretty sure I'm in the right here.