• relative_iterator
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It might be nice if we reserve some things just for humans 🤷🏻‍♂️

    • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That doesn’t sit well to me. I agree that, to some extent, artists and writers should be compensated for their work, even if it just means those interested in creating training sets have to buy a copy of each work they intend to use in a training set so long as it can’t be legally acquired for free (similar to how a human has to buy, “”“buy”“” and/or borrow a book if they want to study it).

      However, at the same time, this mindset opens the door to actual racism, not the silly “hurr, my skin color’s better than your skin color” bullshit we call racism, but the much nastier, “there are actual differences between you and I which I will use to justify my poor behavior” kinda racism; and when your academic partner has the potential to outclass you in nearly every way (assuming most general AI would decide to work in STEM fields), it’s much easier to justify your bigotry. That bigotry may then be learned by the AI and spit back at you; but this time, the accusations of inferiority may truly be justified.

      I mean, think of it this way, what if someone created a general AI that displays all the characteristics of a human to the point of being seemingly indistinguishable from one? Should they not be considered a person? Should they not then be given the same rights as any other person?

      Maybe it’s not possible to create a general AI, but maybe we eventually encounter aliens; the universe is a big place after all. Should they not also be given the same rights as a person?

      The AI problem is so much larger than I think most people realize. The people making these are trying to create life, even if they don’t realize it. Just because it’s a program or amalgamation of programs that run on silicon and copper doesn’t mean it’s any less alive than an amalgamation of programs running on chemical reactions and electric impulses. It’s just a different kind of alive, like how a car that uses electricity and a car that uses internal combustion are both cars, they just have different ways of doing the same thing. That’s not to say current AI is anywhere near as intelligent as a dog, cat or human, but it has the potential to one day become truly intelligent.

      It’s also easy to assume that these are all issues that will be solved in the future, but we have plenty of examples even now of how kicking the can down the street isn’t really an intelligent strategy. Look at how well that can-kicking is turning out in regards to climate change, wealth inequality, healthcare, LGBT+ and BIPOC rights, etc. Regarding AI, I believe there are a lot of hang-ups that we as humans have, whether conscious or unconscious, when it comes to tolerating beings unlike us (we’re still struggling with the skin-color racism); and that it’s better to start working on them now than to wait until Mr. Roboto has his chassis smashed by a bunch of neo-luddites who insist that he’s just a bunch of circuits formed into a crude imitation of humanity.

      Edit: you could also make the argument that choosing not to extend personhood to an intelligent machine opens the door to prejudice and bigotry in regards to transhumanism. At some point, we as humans will start modifying ourselves, via either meat or circuitry, and when that happens, there’ll be plenty of people trying to argue that Joe isn’t a human because he’s had his whole brain replaced with a computer. It doesn’t matter if the surgeons replaced his brain step-by-step to insure Joe himself wasn’t lost in the process; they’ll argue that since the brain is what makes Joe, “Joe”, then he must not be human because his brain is no longer organic.

      Edit 2: Also, I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement. I’ve seen way too many people saying that AI should never, ever be treated as a person.

      • adrian783@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        this is a super-reach, why don’t we deal with AI indistinguishable from human when it happens.

        right now what we have is a language model that is very distinguishable from human so it doesn’t get any human considerations.

        if a monkey or chicken created an artwork, it doesn’t have copyrights, because it’s not human either.

    • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I like that argument as it applies to our ai, which isnt ment to reject bad ideas or motiefs but to never have a bad idea in the first place. This setup results in the bot’s path of least resistance being to copy someones homework. Nobody wants the bot to do that.

      Someday we may have AI that argument is harder to apply to

      i attempt explain, irrelivant

      text generators have a “most correct” output that looks and behaves simmlar to pressing the first of the keyboard suggested words repeatedly. We add noise, where the bot is on a dice roll forced to add a random letter to it’s output. Like the above example if you typed a 5 letter word every so often instead.