Re: Fwd: Responsibility and Personhood

2015-10-30 Thread Russell Standish
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 03:28:09PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: > You wrote: > > > > > *"Then you have not met an algorithm whose output is directly influencedby > the environment. Most robots are agents in this sense. If the agents > areprocessing and reacting to rules, then those agents can be

Re: Fwd: Responsibility and Personhood

2015-10-30 Thread John Mikes
You wrote: *"Then you have not met an algorithm whose output is directly influencedby the environment. Most robots are agents in this sense. If the agents areprocessing and reacting to rules, then those agents can be punishedfor breaking the rules." * As I understand: a 'robot' is not an

Re: Responsibility and Personhood

2015-10-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 29 Oct 2015, at 03:11, Jason Resch wrote: At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its actions because it was doing the only thing it could do, what it was programmed to do. At some point between a simplistic algorithm and a human level AI, however, we seem able to

Re: Responsibility and Personhood

2015-10-30 Thread smitra
Responsibility/culpability is a feature of our own programming allowing us to modify the program of our closely related copies, including ourselves. If we have precise control of the source code of an AI then this notion is rather pointless as we can directly modify the code. However, an AI

Re: Responsibility and Personhood

2015-10-29 Thread Brent Meeker
On 10/28/2015 7:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote: At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its actions because it was doing the only thing it could do, what it was programmed to do. At some point between a simplistic algorithm and a human level AI, however, we seem able to

Fwd: Responsibility and Personhood

2015-10-29 Thread John Mikes
Jason, Russell, Stathis, Brent I am not a Platonian, not a physicist and not a believer, just an agnostic (in my OWN sense of the term). I don't believe that an algorithm *"DOES"*, or *"ACTS" * so it cannot be 'held responsible'. We, the People do all this. *Russell's* 'sense of agency' requires

Re: Fwd: Responsibility and Personhood

2015-10-29 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 03:28:22PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: > Jason, Russell, Stathis, Brent > > I am not a Platonian, not a physicist and not a believer, just an agnostic > (in my OWN sense of the term). I don't believe that an algorithm *"DOES"*, > or *"ACTS" * so it cannot be 'held

Re: Responsibility and Personhood

2015-10-29 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Thursday, 29 October 2015, Jason Resch wrote: > At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its actions > because it was doing the only thing it could do, what it was programmed to > do. At some point between a simplistic algorithm and a human level AI, >

Re: Responsibility and Personhood

2015-10-29 Thread Brent Meeker
On 10/29/2015 6:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Russell Standish > wrote: On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 09:11:34PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its

Re: Responsibility and Personhood

2015-10-29 Thread Jason Resch
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 10/29/2015 6:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Russell Standish < > li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 09:11:34PM -0500, Jason

Re: Responsibility and Personhood

2015-10-29 Thread Brent Meeker
On 10/29/2015 9:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/29/2015 6:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Russell Standish

Re: Responsibility and Personhood

2015-10-29 Thread Jason Resch
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 09:11:34PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > > At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its actions > > because it was doing the only thing it could do, what it was programmed >

Re: Responsibility and Personhood

2015-10-28 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 09:11:34PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its actions > because it was doing the only thing it could do, what it was programmed to > do. At some point between a simplistic algorithm and a human level AI, > however, we

Responsibility and Personhood

2015-10-28 Thread Jason Resch
At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its actions because it was doing the only thing it could do, what it was programmed to do. At some point between a simplistic algorithm and a human level AI, however, we seem able to assigning responsibility/culpability. What does an