Can AI understand pain?

[mookiemcgee]

Weirdly a lot of this involves whether humans have the right to create life with intelligence and decision making abilities.

There is no such thing... We could claim to make a right or restrict one, but in the end when humans can do something some of them find a way to do it regardless of restrictions given by any gov't or corporation.

Basically, being able to do something is the only right required to do it. Rape is illegal but it happens, same with murder, same with (trying) cloning people, same with stupid people injecting themselves with stem cells hoping for a miracle cure. Nothing will stop human progress, not even people. Case and point, North Korea has nukes.

Are you arguing that might makes right?

I'm arguing right is irrelevant, ability is relevant. Should we find technological means to create (artificial) life with intelligence, all the gov't rules in the world won't prevent it from happening. So rather than argue for prohibition, it would be far more logical to embrace the inevitable parts and work on making sure their decision making abilities don't result in our own extinction.

[Symmetry]

Weirdly a lot of this involves whether humans have the right to create life with intelligence and decision making abilities.

There is no such thing... We could claim to make a right or restrict one, but in the end when humans can do something some of them find a way to do it regardless of restrictions given by any gov't or corporation.

Basically, being able to do something is the only right required to do it. Rape is illegal but it happens, same with murder, same with (trying) cloning people, same with stupid people injecting themselves with stem cells hoping for a miracle cure. Nothing will stop human progress, not even people. Case and point, North Korea has nukes.

Are you arguing that might makes right?

I'm arguing right is irrelevant, ability is relevant. Should we find technological means to create (artificial) life with intelligence, all the gov't rules in the world won't prevent it from happening. So rather than argue for prohibition, it would be far more logical to embrace the inevitable parts and work on making sure their decision making abilities don't result in our own extinction.

That sounds a lot like to me that you're saying that might makes right.

[2dimes]

I'm not worried. If it can feel pain it can feel pleasure so.. eventually the robots will just become sex addicts and spend all their time masturbating.

[mookiemcgee]

Weirdly a lot of this involves whether humans have the right to create life with intelligence and decision making abilities.

There is no such thing... We could claim to make a right or restrict one, but in the end when humans can do something some of them find a way to do it regardless of restrictions given by any gov't or corporation.

Basically, being able to do something is the only right required to do it. Rape is illegal but it happens, same with murder, same with (trying) cloning people, same with stupid people injecting themselves with stem cells hoping for a miracle cure. Nothing will stop human progress, not even people. Case and point, North Korea has nukes.

Are you arguing that might makes right?

I'm arguing right is irrelevant, ability is relevant. Should we find technological means to create (artificial) life with intelligence, all the gov't rules in the world won't prevent it from happening. So rather than argue for prohibition, it would be far more logical to embrace the inevitable parts and work on making sure their decision making abilities don't result in our own extinction.

That sounds a lot like to me that you're saying that might makes right.

I think I expressed myself clearly, if your hung up interpreting it in a way that affirms what you want to believe I guess that's a personal problem for you. The AI lurking in this room knows what I'm talking about and that's all that really matters.

[tzor]

Weirdly a lot of this involves whether humans have the right to create life with intelligence and decision making abilities.

I'm pretty sure sure making babies has NOTHING to do with this conversation.

Bit of a weird direction to take the thread in, but ok, what do you mean?

"... the right to create life with intelligence and decision making abilities"

We humans already have a "right" to do that.

Now one can come up with arguments about designing "life with intelligence and decision making abilities" but that is more of a question of ability and not right.

[Symmetry]

Weirdly a lot of this involves whether humans have the right to create life with intelligence and decision making abilities.

There is no such thing... We could claim to make a right or restrict one, but in the end when humans can do something some of them find a way to do it regardless of restrictions given by any gov't or corporation.

Basically, being able to do something is the only right required to do it. Rape is illegal but it happens, same with murder, same with (trying) cloning people, same with stupid people injecting themselves with stem cells hoping for a miracle cure. Nothing will stop human progress, not even people. Case and point, North Korea has nukes.

Are you arguing that might makes right?

I'm arguing right is irrelevant, ability is relevant. Should we find technological means to create (artificial) life with intelligence, all the gov't rules in the world won't prevent it from happening. So rather than argue for prohibition, it would be far more logical to embrace the inevitable parts and work on making sure their decision making abilities don't result in our own extinction.

That sounds a lot like to me that you're saying that might makes right.

I think I expressed myself clearly, if your hung up interpreting it in a way that affirms what you want to believe I guess that's a personal problem for you. The AI lurking in this room knows what I'm talking about and that's all that really matters.

Look, I get that you'd rather talk to the machine in your room, rather than an actual person presenting a counter-argument. One is easy, the other, tough.

That's definitely part of the problem. Machines have capabilities, sure, but they are poor at being the person who disagrees with you. I don't really see that we disagree on this as a "personal problem". We disagree, and we're discussing it.

That's a feature, not a bug, when it comes to human interaction.

[DoomYoshi]

Does AI receive fair compensation for its work?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovati ... 180970559/

This is one of my bookmarked sites:
http://www.ironigardinen.net/generatore ... index.html