On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>wrote:

> silky wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> silky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <
>>>> stath...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2010/1/18 silky <michaelsli...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be my (naive) assumption, that this is arguably trivial to
>>>>>> do. We can design a program that has a desire to 'live', as desire to
>>>>>> find mates, and otherwise entertain itself. In this way, with some
>>>>>> other properties, we can easily model simply pets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Brent's reasons are valid,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Where it falls down for me is that the programmer should ever feel
>>>> guilt. I don't see how I could feel guilty for ending a program when I
>>>> know exactly how it will operate (what paths it will take), even if I
>>>> can't be completely sure of the specific decisions (due to some
>>>> randomisation or whatever)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's not just randomisation, it's experience.  If you create and AI at
>>> fairly high-level (cat, dog, rat, human) it will necessarily have the
>>> ability to learn and after interacting with it's enviroment for a while
>>> it
>>> will become a unique individual.  That's why you would feel sad to "kill"
>>> it
>>> - all that experience and knowledge that you don't know how to replace.
>>>  Of
>>> course it might learn to be "evil" or at least annoying, which would make
>>> you feel less guilty.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nevertheless, though, I know it's exact environment,
>>
>
> Not if it interacts with the world.  You must be thinking of a virtual cat
> AI in a virtual world - but even there the program, if at all realistic, is
> likely to be to complex for you to really comprehend.  Of course *in
> principle* you could spend years going over a few terrabites of data and
>  you could understand, "Oh that's why the AI cat did that on day 2118 at
> 10:22:35, it was because of the interaction of memories of day 1425 at
> 07:54:28 and ...(long string of stuff)."  But you'd be in almost the same
> position as the neuroscientist who understands what a clump of neurons does
> but can't get a wholistic view of what the organism will do.
>
> Surely you've had the experience of trying to debug a large program you
> wrote some years ago that now seems to fail on some input you never tried
> before.  Now think how much harder that would be if it were an AI that had
> been learning and modifying itself for all those years.


I don't disagree with you that it would be significantly complicated, I
suppose my argument is only that, unlike with a real cat, I - the programmer
- know all there is to know about this computer cat. I'm wondering to what
degree that adds or removes to my moral obligations.



>  so I can recreate
>> the things that it learned (I can recreate it all; it's all
>> deterministic: I programmed it). The only thing I can't recreate, is
>> the randomness, assuming I introduced that (but as we know, I can
>> recreate that anyway, because I'd just use the same "seed" state;
>> unless the source of randomness is "true").
>>
>>
>>
>>> I don't see how I could ever think "No, you
>>>> can't harm X". But what I find very interesting, is that even if I
>>>> knew *exactly* how a cat operated, I could never kill one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> but I don't think making an artificial
>>>>> animal is as simple as you say.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> So is it a complexity issue? That you only start to care about the
>>>> entity when it's significantly complex. But exactly how complex? Or is
>>>> it about the unknowningness; that the project is so large you only
>>>> work on a small part, and thus you don't fully know it's workings, and
>>>> then that is where the guilt comes in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think unknowingness plays a big part, but it's because of our
>>> experience
>>> with people and animals, we project our own experience of consciousness
>>> on
>>> to them so that when we see them behave in certain ways we impute an
>>> inner
>>> life to them that includes pleasure and suffering.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I agree. So does that mean that, over time, if we continue using
>> these computer-based cats, we would become attached to them (i.e. your
>> Sony toys example
>>
>>
>
> Hell, I even become attached to my motorcycles.


Does it follow, then, that we'll start to have laws relating to "ending" of
motorcycles humanely? Probably not. So there must be more too it then just
attachment.




>
>>
>>> Indeed, this is something that concerns me as well. If we do create an
>>>> AI, and force it to do our bidding, are we acting immorally? Or
>>>> perhaps we just withhold the desire for the program to do it's "own
>>>> thing", but is that in itself wrong?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't think so.  We don't worry about the internet's feelings, or the
>>> air
>>> traffic control system.  John McCarthy has written essays on this subject
>>> and he cautions against creating AI with human like emotions precisely
>>> because of the ethical implications.  But that means we need to
>>> understand
>>> consciousness and emotions less we accidentally do something unethical.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Fair enough. But by the same token, what if we discover a way to
>> remove emotions from real-born children. Would it be wrong to do that?
>> Is "emotion" an inherent property that we should never be allowed to
>> remove, once created?
>>
>>
>
> Certainly it would be fruitless to remove all emotions because that would
> be the same as removing all discrimination and motivation - they'd be dumb
> as tape recorders.  So I suppose you're asking about removing, or providing
> specific emotions.  Removing, for example, empathy would certainly be bad
> idea - that's how you get sociopathic killers.  Suppose we could remove all
> selfishness and create an altruistic being who only wanted to help and serve
> others (as some religions hold up as an ideal).  I think you can immediately
> see that would be a disaster.
>



> Suppose we could add and emotion that put a positive value on running
> backwards.  Would that add to their overall pleasure in life - being able to
> enjoy something in addition to all the other things they would have
> naturally enjoyed?  I'd say yes.  In which case it would then be wrong to
> later remove that emotion and deny them the potential pleasure - assuming of
> course there are no contrary ethical considerations.
>

So the only problem you see is if we ever add emotion, and then remove it.
The problem doesn't lie in not adding it at all? Practically, the result is
the same. If a baby is born without the "emotion" for feeling overworked, or
adjusted so that it enjoys this overworked state, then we take advantage of
that, are we wrong? If the AI we create is modelled on humans anyway, isn't
it somewhat "cheating" to not re-implement everything, and instead only
implement the parts that we selflishly consider useful?

I suppose there is no real obligation to recreate an entire human
consciousness (after all, if we did, we'd have no more control over it than
we do other "real" humans), but it's interesting that we're able to pick and
choose what to create, and yet, not able to remove from real children what
we determine is inappropriate to make *them* more "effective" workers. The
argument against that sort of thing would be we are depriving the child of a
different life; but would it ever know? What would it care? And regardless,
doesn't the program we've written deserve the same rights? Why not?




> Brent
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>


-- 
silky
 http://www.mirios.com.au/
 http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20

RAMIE bloated double-knit hearten fleetness.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to