On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 7:27:26 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Apr 2019, at 15:33, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > *AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals* > > *John Basl is assistant professor of philosophy at Northeastern University > in Boston* > > > https://aeon.co/ideas/ais-should-have-the-same-ethical-protections-as-animals > > ... > > A puzzle and difficulty arises here because the scientific study of > consciousness has not reached a consensus about what consciousness is, and > how we can tell whether or not it is present. On some views – ‘liberal’ > views – for consciousness to exist requires nothing but a certain type of > well-organised information-processing, such as a flexible informational > model of the system in relation to objects in its environment, with guided > attentional capacities and long-term action-planning. We might be on the > verge of creating such systems already. On other views – ‘conservative’ > views – consciousness might require very specific biological features, such > as a brain very much like a mammal brain in its low-level structural > details: in which case we are nowhere near creating artificial > consciousness. > > It is unclear which type of view is correct or whether some other > explanation will in the end prevail. However, if a liberal view is correct, > we might soon be creating many subhuman AIs who will deserve ethical > protection. There lies the moral risk. > > Discussions of ‘AI risk’ normally focus on the risks that new AI > technologies might pose to us humans, such as taking over the world and > destroying us, or at least gumming up our banking system. Much less > discussed is the ethical risk we pose to the AIs, through our possible > mistreatment of them. > > > The humans are still the main threat for the human. The idea to give human > right to AI does not make music sense. It is part of the work of the AI to > learn to defend themselves. We can be open mind, and listen, but defending > their right can only threat the human right, I would say. In the theology > of the machine, it can be proved that hell is paved with the good > intentions … (amazingly enough, and accepting some definitions, of course). > > > > My 'conservative' view: information processing (alone) does not achieve > experience (consciousness) processing. > > > Mechanism makes you right on this, although it can depend how information > processing is defined. Consciousness is not in the processing, but in > truth, or in the semantic related to that processing,. The processing > itself by is only a relative concept, where consciousness is an absolute > thing. > > Bruno > > https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/10/14/experience-processing/ > > > - > @philipthrift > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fphilipthrift&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHxMatNNL0zmgjAMcrtu2m1txb6_A> > > On "Consciousness is not in the processing, but in truth, or in the semantic related to that processing, ..." I address in the next article:
https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/12/14/material-semantics-for-unconventional-programming/ But my mode of thinking is that of an engineer, not a truth-seeker. @philipthrift <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fphilipthrift&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHxMatNNL0zmgjAMcrtu2m1txb6_A> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
