EU to grant robots rights.

  • Thread starter Thread starter RI 360
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
With refugees threatening to literally rape, shoot, bomb and Carmageddon the whiteness out of the EU and many member states grumbling about secession, it's good to see the EU intelligentsia working on the real important topics.

I hope they also pass a bill recognizing hobbit, elf and orc rights.
 
Marvin said:
This is really stupid.

I don't believe sentient AI (implemented in anything other than biological matter) will ever achieve speeds faster than, maybe, a sparrow. People take science fiction too seriously and then gloss over the actual technological hurdles.
Click to expand...

I think you are a bit over the top, but certainly won't happen for a few centuries more for sure. Its not that we don't have the computing power, its that we don't seem to be able to code it to sentience. So far, no "spark of sentience" just a long string of automatic code. But who knows, maybe we are just automated biological code too.
 
Male Idiot said:
I think you are a bit over the top, but certainly won't happen for a few centuries more for sure. Its not that we don't have the computing power, its that we don't seem to be able to code it to sentience. So far, no "spark of sentience" just a long string of automatic code. But who knows, maybe we are just automated biological code too.
Click to expand...
No, actually, there's some very basic computer science backing what I'm saying. Most people excited about AI are ignorant about the topic.

Personally, I believe sentience is just a natural result of neurons receiving, storing and reacting to input data in an incredibly tight loop. That is, when the loop moves fast enough, with enough neurons operating in tandem, sentience naturally develops as a side effect. I imagine it like a magnetic field springing up around a conducting coil.

Of course, I'm a programmer, not a philosopher, so that's just my best guess.

However, sentience aside, I can at least comment on just the problem of calculating what a human brain calculates. So, every "frame", the brain calculates voltage inputs and outputs from each neuron to a nearby neuron. Those charges can go on in later frames to touch additional neurons and send signals in complex paths across the brain and through the body. These frames have to be calculated as quickly as possible to match the reaction time of a human. Almost instantaneously. All at the same time. (Or at least, the result has to go into effect at the same time.)

Humans have billions of neurons that do this perpetually. Silicon based computers, however, will never have billions of cores.

It's not that we can't calculate this stuff. It's that we will never be able to match the speed with which biological flesh does it. Even if we massively parallelize it with a bunch (maybe not a billion, but a lot) of cores, I believe that even inter-core communication will cause problems, just due to lag.

You don't want to have lag in your brain. (Maybe that's what autism is?)

We can simulate thought. It's just that it's very slow thinking for the simulated brain. Five minutes of real time might take three weeks of a simulated brain (pulling these numbers out of my ass). They're essentially retarded.

However, I believe that engineering some sort of AI based on biological cells would have great potential. (But that also has huge ethical considerations.)

We've gotta solve something comparable to the travelling salesman problem for every instant of an AI brain's life to achieve sentience. That ain't happening.
 
I'll make sure to check my human privileges registry.
 
Can they take away the rapefugees' rights and give them to the robots? That sounds like a fair trade to me.
 
Marvin said:
No, actually, there's some very basic computer science backing what I'm saying. Most people excited about AI are ignorant about the topic.

Personally, I believe sentience is just a natural result of neurons receiving, storing and reacting to input data in an incredibly tight loop. That is, when the loop moves fast enough, with enough neurons operating in tandem, sentience naturally develops as a side effect. I imagine it like a magnetic field springing up around a conducting coil.

Of course, I'm a programmer, not a philosopher, so that's just my best guess.

However, sentience aside, I can at least comment on just the problem of calculating what a human brain calculates. So, every "frame", the brain calculates voltage inputs and outputs from each neuron to a nearby neuron. Those charges can go on in later frames to touch additional neurons and send signals in complex paths across the brain and through the body. These frames have to be calculated as quickly as possible to match the reaction time of a human. Almost instantaneously. All at the same time. (Or at least, the result has to go into effect at the same time.)

Humans have billions of neurons that do this perpetually. Silicon based computers, however, will never have billions of cores.

It's not that we can't calculate this stuff. It's that we will never be able to match the speed with which biological flesh does it. Even if we massively parallelize it with a bunch (maybe not a billion, but a lot) of cores, I believe that even inter-core communication will cause problems, just due to lag.

You don't want to have lag in your brain. (Maybe that's what autism is?)

We can simulate thought. It's just that it's very slow thinking for the simulated brain. Five minutes of real time might take three weeks of a simulated brain (pulling these numbers out of my ass). They're essentially exceptional.

However, I believe that engineering some sort of AI based on biological cells would have great potential. (But that also has huge ethical considerations.)

We've gotta solve something comparable to the travelling salesman problem for every instant of an AI brain's life to achieve sentience. That ain't happening.
Click to expand...

I would not rule it out, though I have to say I think in way longer terms in this case than most people do. After all, all we know of computers is based on a single century. Who knows what will happen in a few thousand years? But you are totally right that it is a huge hurdle that will not be overcome any time soon. So the EU is totally wasting time. They may as well start to regulate interstellar travel.
 
I'm not really up to date with robotics so please forgive me I understand it's about some shady legal things and jumping the gun by a few decades.

But, are the AI's made by the same company that makes the robot it self? We often see cluster fucks happen when you deal with a faulty supplier and how the legal battles happen from end user. IE Takata air bag and the car companies.

Not that the EU needs to worry about it now, but if Google makes the AI and it tells honda bot to start punching babies, it's gonna be a hell of a court issue I can guess.
 
If I owned a business in Europe, I would use this as an excuse to fire human employees and replace them with machines and be able to claim that I'm filling a diversity quota. It's a win-win.
 
Varg Did Nothing Wrong said:
You know what's worse than rapefugees?

Cyber rapefugees with augmented megacocks.
Click to expand...

Is this what the future has in store for us?

300x300.jpg
 
Marvin said:
No, actually, there's some very basic computer science backing what I'm saying. Most people excited about AI are ignorant about the topic.

Personally, I believe sentience is just a natural result of neurons receiving, storing and reacting to input data in an incredibly tight loop. That is, when the loop moves fast enough, with enough neurons operating in tandem, sentience naturally develops as a side effect. I imagine it like a magnetic field springing up around a conducting coil.

Of course, I'm a programmer, not a philosopher, so that's just my best guess.

However, sentience aside, I can at least comment on just the problem of calculating what a human brain calculates. So, every "frame", the brain calculates voltage inputs and outputs from each neuron to a nearby neuron. Those charges can go on in later frames to touch additional neurons and send signals in complex paths across the brain and through the body. These frames have to be calculated as quickly as possible to match the reaction time of a human. Almost instantaneously. All at the same time. (Or at least, the result has to go into effect at the same time.)

Humans have billions of neurons that do this perpetually. Silicon based computers, however, will never have billions of cores.

It's not that we can't calculate this stuff. It's that we will never be able to match the speed with which biological flesh does it. Even if we massively parallelize it with a bunch (maybe not a billion, but a lot) of cores, I believe that even inter-core communication will cause problems, just due to lag.

You don't want to have lag in your brain. (Maybe that's what autism is?)

We can simulate thought. It's just that it's very slow thinking for the simulated brain. Five minutes of real time might take three weeks of a simulated brain (pulling these numbers out of my ass). They're essentially exceptional.

However, I believe that engineering some sort of AI based on biological cells would have great potential. (But that also has huge ethical considerations.)

We've gotta solve something comparable to the travelling salesman problem for every instant of an AI brain's life to achieve sentience. That ain't happening.
Click to expand...


This. Anyone who has this idea of AI becoming this sentient powerful thing that will enslave humanity has zero idea how AI works. Even machine learning is nothing like being sentient. Machine learning is essentially an algorithm that changes variables based on results to allow the machine to behave more in the manner it was designed to. An example of this is optical-character recognition. You "teach" the OCR to recognize handwriting by feeding it different handwriting and telling it what character it is supposed to be, and behind the scenes, the variables in the algorithm change to recognize it.

I did graduate level computer science work in AI and computability theory.
 
entropyseekswork said:
Just the fact they want to make a robot liable for the damage it causes raises red flags to me that this kind of exceptionalism is being push by the manufacturers of said robots to evade future lawsuits.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what it is. Most law firms are already prepping for the legal issues increased automation will bring and personhood to avoid liability is seen as the holy grail for the manufacturers. Actual personhood will not happen imo, that implies personal responsibilities beyound a mavhines capacity, but a complex series of cases placing liability with the ai programmer, user or similiar i think are inevitable. Eventually.

ToroidalBoat said:
What do average Europeans think of these EU committees?
Click to expand...
The average european:

Does not know who their mep is
Does not know how to contact their mep
Does not know what the power of a mep is
Does not know which european party their mep sits with
Does not know who the majority party in the ep is
Does not know what that parties platform is
Cannot explain the distinction and roles of the ep, ecoun, ecb, ecom or ecj
Doesnt understand the difference between the echr, eu and ecj
Does not know any of the contents of the lisbon treaty
Does not realise the lisbon treaty is the constitution of the eu
Does not know what a directive is or where it comes from
Cannot name the five presidents of the eu or explain their different roles.
Cannot explain how the eu legislates
Cannot name their countries members of the commission
Cannot explain the difference between the eu and eec or eea
Cannot describe the changes between maastricht and lisbon
Cannot explain the function or structure of CAP
Cannot explain the CFP


They probably do know that the eu allows free trade between members (without knowing any of the excemptions or soecifics), uses the euro in the eurozone, allows free movement for those seeking work and has no borders inside the schengen area. Few will be able to namewho is in or out of schengen. Most will have a vague idea of some kind of agricultural subsidy and development fund for poorer nations.

I would be shocked if more than 1% of europeans are aware of this little debate.

This isin't a dig at europeans- im trained in eu law and cannot answer all of those off the top of my head.
 
I would be shocked if more than 1% of europeans are aware of this little debate.
Click to expand...

The only people I know of who care and will argue over this without exhausting and for years are libertarians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom