Is it/will it be wrong to bully a robot?

[henfant]

Browsing the net I found this interesting video:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Seriously, I never thought I'd live to see anything like that. Specially when BigDog slips on ice, so un-robot like, isn't it? Out of the fun, amazement, and interest and against my will, I must confess that the US knows how to put "your [defense] money at work".

But the reason I wanted to start this thread is because of what happens in sec 40'. The guy kick-pushes the robot and I feel it as wrong, but the slow-motion hurts my heart and brain. That must be, will have to be punishable! It felt so wrong that my brain rushed to think of a world populated by people and robots where some (people or robots) get physical abuse.

Does being a machine make it 'right' to beat it up? When it slips on the ice you can see that a lot of money and time has been put into perfecting its sensors. Do sensors lead to 'feeling'?

[Jgib5328]

Would you feel badly if you kicked a rock? It's a fucking machine dude, go kick your microwave, it won't mind, it has no mind!

[henfant]

Would you feel badly if you kicked a rock? It's a fucking machine dude, go kick your microwave, it won't mind, it has no mind!

So kicking my comatose grandma is also alright, is it?

[Jgib5328]

So kicking my comatose grandma is also alright, is it?

Your comatose grandma is a real living thing, she exists, robots aren't alive, they are just machines. Your vision of them has been romanticized by too many movies. That walking robot is the same thing as a toaster oven. It performs functions, it isn't alive.

You could kick your grandma too, it really wouldn't matter all too much, but it isn't the same as kicking a hunk of metal.

[henfant]

Your comatose grandma is a real living thing, she exists, robots aren't alive, they are just machines. Your vision of them has been romanticized by too many movies. That walking robot is the same thing as a toaster oven. It performs functions, it isn't alive.

I'd be glad to hear your definition of 'living thing'

[thod]

You can be cruel to people and to animals. You cannot be cruel to rocks, or paper.

There is nothing wrong with building a combat robot to train boxers. Even the fighting robots are fine. They are just 2 machines. Its like smashing cars in demolition derby, the cars simply don't care.

I would have reservations about humanoid robots being built to be tortured. Not because of the machines but because of what it is doing to the mind of the person. If someone practices hitting and stabbing them on a whim he is more likely to do that to real people.

[Jgib5328]

Defining life is difficult, but if the robot had a mind, then I'd consider it cruel to kick it. You probably just felt something because the robot looked like an animal, if that robot was just a huge metallic box and someone was kicking it, you wouldn't care. As a take on thod's analogy, would you feel badly for your car if you crashed it? I don't mean feel badly about what happened to your car, but feel badly like you'd feel when a person gets injured.

[brewmaster]

If someone invented a robot that actually had a 'mind' not only would I abuse it, I would 'kill' it. I thoroughly enjoy being top predator on this planet.

[Aldrin]

Your comatose grandma is a real living thing, she exists, robots aren't alive, they are just machines. Your vision of them has been romanticized by too many movies. That walking robot is the same thing as a toaster oven. It performs functions, it isn't alive.

You could kick your grandma too, it really wouldn't matter all too much, but it isn't the same as kicking a hunk of metal.

From a cell biology point of view the same could be said about humans. True the level of complexity is orders of magnitude higher than any robots we have today (as well as their multi functional capabilities), but what happens if one day a robot is made that can reproduce, grow, and adapt to a wide range of environments by itself? Arguably robots already exist which can meet the other four requirements (self regulation, metabolizing chemical substances for energy, ability to organize its subcomponents, and it's ability to respond to stimulus.)

Were already more then halfway there (in terms of number of req's, not technical ability to fulfill the whole), and since it can be done on a cellular it is without question physically possible. What then?

Well...it's still completely unconscious, it doesn't actually feel pain, and its mental abilities are very limited. So might some say about animals, but if your neighbor sees you kicking your dog you can face legal charges. Maybe PETR groups will start popping up in a few decades, although I somewhat doubt they will be the same people behind its parent foundation...

[Jgib5328]

From a cell biology point of view the same could be said about humans. True the level of complexity is orders of magnitude higher than any robots we have today (as well as their multi functional capabilities), but what happens if one day a robot is made that can reproduce, grow, and adapt to a wide range of environments by itself? Arguably robots already exist which can meet the other four requirements (self regulation, metabolizing chemical substances for energy, ability to organize its subcomponents, and it's ability to respond to stimulus.)

Were already more then halfway there (in terms of number of req's, not technical ability to fulfill the whole), and since it can be done on a cellular it is without question physically possible. What then?

Well...it's still completely unconscious, it doesn't actually feel pain, and its mental abilities are very limited. So might some say about animals, but if your neighbor sees you kicking your dog you can face legal charges. Maybe PETR groups will start popping up in a few decades, although I somewhat doubt they will be the same people behind its parent foundation...

We're just talking about that mobile robot in the video, it can't reproduce, it can't think, it isn't alive. Maybe if it was able to adapt or reproduce I'd feel badly, but until then, it's just a machine.

[AgentofGaming]

The robot doesn't care whether it was kicked (aside from stabilization purposes), why should you?

[sriv]

If someone invented a robot that actually had a 'mind' not only would I abuse it, I would 'kill' it. I thoroughly enjoy being top predator on this planet.

I literally laughed out loud and spewed cereal all over the place while and after reading your post.

No it is not wrong to bully a robot unless it can comprehend suffering.

[Darkmist]

This makes me laugh. Is it wrong to push a chair into place? Is it wrong to shove a pan around on the stove? What of pounding a nail through a board? (and no, I don't want any Jesus nailed to the cross crap on this)

hahahahahah

Does my nail gun feel that I've jerked him around or shot his theories to shit when I use him? (uh, it)

Is oak more sensitive than maple? Does a robot feel that it's stories are riveting? Sorry, I couldn't help it. I think I need a beer.

[blueback]

Then it's settled. It only matters when the robot achieves sentience.

[TheLastMohican]

Then it's settled. It only matters when the robot achieves sentience.

I think I'm there.

[henfant]

I really think that I didn't make myself clear. Kicking a pan, nailing a piece of tree... The point I am trying to raise is not about feeling pity for my car's headlight blowing up, rocks or paper. We are talking here about humanoid/animal-like robots.

Where is INTJs open-mindness?

What I am trying to comment on is the moral implications of abusing a theoretically mindless (again, what defines having a mind) thing.

Agentfo:The robot doesn't care whether it was kicked (aside from stabilization purposes), why should you?
A: Well, to what extent 'not falling over' is not a mission in itself?

Aldrin: Well...it's still completely unconscious, it doesn't actually feel pain, and its mental abilities are very limited.
A: I agree with you but, re-assigning extra resources to a damaged area for 'healing' or being AI conscious of a broken leg wouldn't be considered as 'feeling pain'? At the end of the day, machine or person, it is the complexity and quality of our sensorial abilities that let us feel 'pain'.

Darkmist: Does my nail gun feel that I've jerked him around or shot his theories to shit when I use him?
A: Leaving radical vegetarianism aside, would you feel the same way if you called in your nail gun and it would walk down, greet you, warn you of an electrical cable here or there, finish the work and go on cooking your dinner? I bet you would all use 'hello' and 'thanks' with IT. I bet you would care if a neighbour abused your 'mindless' nail gun. Unless, of course you curse yourself everyday for missing the Abu Ghraib draft.

[Antares]

A: Leaving radical vegetarianism aside, would you feel the same way if you called in your nail gun and it would walk down, greet you, warn you of an electrical cable here or there, finish the work and go on cooking your dinner? I bet you would all use 'hello' and 'thanks' with IT. I bet you would care if a neighbour abused your 'mindless' nail gun. Unless, of course you curse yourself everyday for missing the Abu Ghraib draft.

Of course I would care if my neighbor abused my gun; he had the impudence to damage my property! If it broke, I'd have to buy a new one! Now that would be unfortunate.

A: I agree with you but, re-assigning extra resources to a damaged area for 'healing' or being AI conscious of a broken leg wouldn't be considered as 'feeling pain'? At the end of the day, machine or person, it is the complexity and quality of our sensorial abilities that let us feel 'pain'.

Yes, but it still isn't 'living', per se. Try pulling the plug and see what it does. Additionally, if we should treat it like a living being, then perhaps we can play the practical joke of pouring apple juice down its hull, just like we do with people and their shirts.

[TheLastMohican]

Yes, but it still isn't 'living', per se. Try pulling the plug and see what it does. Additionally, if we should treat it like a living being, then perhaps we can play the practical joke of pouring apple juice down its hull, just like we do with people and their shirts.

In that sense you are no different from the robot. You say pull the plug, as in removing the robot's source of electricity. But guess what happens if I remove your source of oxygen.

[AgentofGaming]

Agentfo:The robot doesn't care whether it was kicked (aside from stabilization purposes), why should you?
A: Well, to what extent 'not falling over' is not a mission in itself?

Completing the mission has no meaning to the robot itself, only to the creators.
If you broke the robot, the robot itself would not care or feel negatively toward you, but the creators may.

In that sense you are no different from the robot. You say pull the plug, as in removing the robot's source of electricity. But guess what happens if I remove your source of oxygen.

Yes but in that analogy you can't turn her back on without damage if you replug after 4 minutes. (CPU damage) :thumbsup:
Not to mention a reboot wouldn't be guaranteed.

[TheLastMohican]

Yes but in that analogy you can't turn her back on without damage if you replug after 4 minutes. (CPU damage) :thumbsup:
Not to mention a reboot wouldn't be guaranteed.

Four minutes? No, sometimes that still works. CPR and a defibrilator will work quite a while after the person is "dead." I think it takes about six minutes before the brain is permanently damaged.

But I know your point.

[vkut79]

Completing the mission has no meaning to the robot itself, only to the creators.

Is that true? I thought that the robot was programmed to try to complete the mission. Therefore completing the mission has positive meaning for the robot, as opposed to negative meaning for failure. This meaning is defined in the robot's programming.

If you broke the robot, the robot itself would not care or feel negatively toward you, but the creators may.

The robot may not be programmed to even know about its creator, much less to care or feel negatively about him/her, so you are probably correct in this situation. What if it was programmed and constructed to be aware of the creator, and respond in different ways to the creator based on the creator's action towards it? Then you might say it does have feelings about the creator

[AgentofGaming]

Is that true? I thought that the robot was programmed to try to complete the mission. Therefore completing the mission has positive meaning for the robot, as opposed to negative meaning for failure. This meaning is defined in the robot's programming.

The robot may not be programmed to even know about its creator, much less to care or feel negatively about him/her, so you are probably correct in this situation. What if it was programmed and constructed to be aware of the creator, and respond in different ways to the creator based on the creator's action towards it? Then you might say it does have feelings about the creator

I don't think completing the mission is a positive meaning to the robot itself. The positive meaning is derived from the creators. The robot is programmed to do, the meaning of success is only in the eyes of the creator of the tool not the tool itself.

When the program is self-aware then you get into a whole new arena. It will probably be like how people argue when a fetus is considered a human.
However to the question I can't really perceive of such yet since it hasn't happened, but why would a creator want the created to be aware anyways? Do we need robot gratitude to feed our pride? or would it be a demonstration of the programmer's competence? or perhaps cater to some other needs of the creator. Well whatever it is I don't think programmers want a robot to be angry at them. Perhaps we'll just adjust our mindsets when if it do feel and there will be robot-rights activists.

I'm not sure about awareness but once their sentience is achieved it's self-perpetuating; computers creating better computers. I have no idea where that will go but the world will be changed for sure.

[TheLastMohican]

So the consensus here is that I'm fair game?

[blueback]

Dude, you're not a robot and your avatar looks more like a suit of armor than a robot.

LOL, have you ever seen Grandma's Boy? There's this scene in it where the crazy/evil programmer says "I'm going to get robot legs. It's a dangerous procedure but I think it will be worth it.". . .I guess you kind of have to see it.

It seems inevitable that artificial things will become self-aware eventually. All it seems to take is a certain level of processing power and a certain amount of memory. Kurzweil's theory is that the process of evolution is continuing through our machines because we are evolving too slowly. Eventually they'll leave us behind in terms of complexity and capability.

[vkut79]

I don't think completing the mission is a positive meaning to the robot itself. The positive meaning is derived from the creators. The robot is programmed to do, the meaning of success is only in the eyes of the creator of the tool not the tool itself.

When the program is self-aware then you get into a whole new arena. It will probably be like how people argue when a fetus is considered a human.
However to the question I can't really perceive of such yet since it hasn't happened, but why would a creator want the created to be aware anyways? Do we need robot gratitude to feed our pride? or would it be a demonstration of the programmer's competence? or perhaps cater to some other needs of the creator. Well whatever it is I don't think programmers want a robot to be angry at them. Perhaps we'll just adjust our mindsets when if it do feel and there will be robot-rights activists.

Isn't the robot self-aware about whether or not he fails to accomplish his task? Doesn't his programming involve a feedback mechanism that links the outcome of his action to his decision-making process, such as whether or not to move in one way or another to raise the probability of succeeding in accomplishing his task? Isn't their meaning for the robot in this information?
What is the fundamental difference between the biological processes in the human creator that constitute meaning in the robot's success and the electronic processes in the robot that designate appropriate outcome-action feedback?
Meaning doesn't need to be restricted to our own human cognition.

I'm not sure about awareness but once their sentience is achieved it's self-perpetuating; computers creating better computers. I have no idea where that will go but the world will be changed for sure.

What is sentience for a robot? I don't think its right to pretend like there is a black/white distinction between sentience and non-sentience. A robot that can receive and interpret information is already sentient in my view. So a robot that uses sensory information to achieve balance has some sentience. Obviously not as sentient as humans are, but still. Do we need to respect it for having this sentience? That's a different question. Humans abuse each other sometimes for crying out loud and still ask if its morally right or wrong. When it comes to respecting a machine, who would? Regardless, my point is that sentience is not a black/white issue, and just because something has sentience doesn't necessarily mean that it deserves respect.

[blueback]

Maybe it's not sentience that should be the deciding factor but emotion. We don't make laws to protect dogs because they're self-aware, we make laws to protect them because they are capable of being sad and hurt.

So, if a robot could feel hurt by the disrespect implied in the act of kicking it then maybe it would be worthy of protection. Just because it can register the damage in some number of units as compared to an undamaged state doesn't mean it felt pain. Maybe it has to convince us that it has emotions.

[thod]

Isn't the robot self-aware about whether or not he fails to accomplish his task? Doesn't his programming involve a feedback mechanism that links the outcome of his action to his decision-making process, such as whether or not to move in one way or another to raise the probability of succeeding in accomplishing his task? Isn't their meaning for the robot in this information?


So we shouldn't interrupt a software loop, with ^C for example, because the program will get upset. There is no meaning for the robot. A running piece of software doesn't sit outside itself saying I hope this loop is allowed to finish. It doesn't even know its in a loop. It takes each instruction one by one and has no knowledge of the wider scope of the program. Just because you put a chip in a dog shaped metal can does not make it sentient. Perhaps this is non engineers anthropomorphizing machines.

[TheLastMohican]

Dude, you're not a robot and your avatar looks more like a suit of armor than a robot.

I know I'm not a robot (although Jgib said "You are the robot."). :nice: I just like my avatar a lot, so I bring it up occasionally.

LOL, have you ever seen Grandma's Boy? There's this scene in it where the crazy/evil programmer says "I'm going to get robot legs. It's a dangerous procedure but I think it will be worth it.". . .I guess you kind of have to see it.


I've never seen that, but I will look it up.

[AgentofGaming]

Isn't the robot self-aware about whether or not he fails to accomplish his task? Doesn't his programming involve a feedback mechanism that links the outcome of his action to his decision-making process, such as whether or not to move in one way or another to raise the probability of succeeding in accomplishing his task? Isn't their meaning for the robot in this information?I'd go with thod's description. The loop doesn't quit because it's satisfied with itself, it quits because criteria is met.

What is the fundamental difference between the biological processes in the human creator that constitute meaning in the robot's success and the electronic processes in the robot that designate appropriate outcome-action feedback?
Meaning doesn't need to be restricted to our own human cognition.
The difference is an engineer knows getting fired is a bad thing, meanwhile an electronic thermometer does not know itself exists.

The outcome feedback for the robot is probably some algorithms: is this the proper height? if not adjust; its just numbers and logic a bunch of (<, >, =, OR, AND).
My program won't be disappointed if the (if x >5) statement isn't executed.
The outcome feedback for the engineer is, is my robot going to run properly? or am I going to get sent to the testing department?


What is sentience for a robot? I don't think its right to pretend like there is a black/white distinction between sentience and non-sentience. A robot that can receive and interpret information is already sentient in my view. So a robot that uses sensory information to achieve balance has some sentience. Obviously not as sentient as humans are, but still. Do we need to respect it for having this sentience? That's a different question. Humans abuse each other sometimes for crying out loud and still ask if its morally right or wrong. When it comes to respecting a machine, who would? Regardless, my point is that sentience is not a black/white issue, and just because something has sentience doesn't necessarily mean that it deserves respect.
A robot follows a program which is a bunch of instructions. What is the sentience for instructions?
I don't know... with that criteria sentience my router receives and interprets data, is it sentient? or is it just an electronic device?

Following a pre-determined set of instructions isn't sentience, the robot isn't going to write itself some code on how to get over a wall it can't pass. A human will develop ways to get over a wall if he/she didn't know how to.

vkut you programmed yet? a lot of the issue is pretty clear once you have. There's no mysticism behind it like in the movies, it has no life, no awareness, no understanding of itself, well not yet; its just instructions so far. The creation is just a bunch of overworked software engineers making instruction after instruction and mechanical engineers who wire it to the mechanical components. The execution is just electricity 5V for on and 0V for off, a big complex set of on off switches and routing of electricity.





AgentofGaming added to this post, 26 minutes and 41 seconds later...


Kurzweil's theory is that the process of evolution is continuing through our machines because we are evolving too slowly. Eventually they'll leave us behind in terms of complexity and capability.

It seems worrying that humanity will become obsolete. It gets into the matrix kind of dilemmas.

Maybe it's not sentience that should be the deciding factor but emotion. We don't make laws to protect dogs because they're self-aware, we make laws to protect them because they are capable of being sad and hurt.

Emotion seems like a good criteria. However it seems that it's applied somewhat subjectively by society. If I kick my cow that's abuse but when I kill it and sell it off as beef most people are okay.

[vkut79]

I'd go with thod's description. The loop doesn't quit because it's satisfied with itself, it quits because criteria is met.


The difference is an engineer knows getting fired is a bad thing, meanwhile an electronic thermometer does not know itself exists.

The outcome feedback for the robot is probably some algorithms: is this the proper height? if not adjust; its just numbers and logic a bunch of (<, >, =, OR, AND).
My program won't be disappointed if the (if x >5) statement isn't executed.
The outcome feedback for the engineer is, is my robot going to run properly? or am I going to get sent to the testing department?

A robot follows a program which is a bunch of instructions. What is the sentience for instructions?
I don't know... with that criteria sentience my router receives and interprets data, is it sentient? or is it just an electronic device?

Following a pre-determined set of instructions isn't sentience, the robot isn't going to write itself some code on how to get over a wall it can't pass. A human will develop ways to get over a wall if he/she didn't know how to.

vkut you programmed yet? a lot of the issue is pretty clear once you have. There's no mysticism behind it like in the movies, it has no life, no awareness, no understanding of itself, well not yet; its just instructions so far. The creation is just a bunch of overworked software engineers making instruction after instruction and mechanical engineers who wire it to the mechanical components. The execution is just electricity 5V for on and 0V for off, a big complex set of on off switches and routing of electricity.

Okay, so you define sentience as awareness and perception of oneself. I think that's the right definition. That's an important point. So if a robot was programmed to monitor its own actions, would it be sentient, since its aware of part of itself, or part of its actions? All this would take is to have a secondary program that monitors the main program. If something isn't working with the main program, the secondary program takes action and causes a change in the main program, and so the main program can continue towards its goal. Human cognitive processes function basically like this - highly interconnected programs, with neurons in the brain influencing each other's activities.

So we shouldn't interrupt a software loop, with ^C for example, because the program will get upset. There is no meaning for the robot. A running piece of software doesn't sit outside itself saying I hope this loop is allowed to finish. It doesn't even know its in a loop. It takes each instruction one by one and has no knowledge of the wider scope of the program. Just because you put a chip in a dog shaped metal can does not make it sentient. Perhaps this is non engineers anthropomorphizing machines.

I never thought that the program would get upset. That's getting into feeling, not meaning. And I agree with you on the rest - simply following a program does not equal sentience. Like I mentioned above, sentience should be described as being aware of oneself / one's actions. So the robot would need to be aware of the wider scope of a given program that it follows to perhaps be called sentient.

So I take back what I said earlier about a robot being sentient because it receives and acts on information - thats not sentience. Sentience is being able to monitor one's own actions and see a wider scope of what itself is doing.

[Antares]

Emotion seems like a good criteria. However it seems that it's applied somewhat subjectively by society. If I kick my cow that's abuse but when I kill it and sell it off as beef most people are okay.

So if I kick my machine, it's abuse, but if I destroy it, it's ok :thumbsup:

[AgentofGaming]

Okay, so you define sentience as awareness and perception of oneself. I think that's the right definition. That's an important point. So if a robot was programmed to monitor its own actions, would it be sentient, since its aware of part of itself, or part of its actions? All this would take is to have a secondary program that monitors the main program. If something isn't working with the main program, the secondary program takes action and causes a change in the main program, and so the main program can continue towards its goal. Human cognitive processes function basically like this - highly interconnected programs, with neurons in the brain influencing each other's activities.
What do you consider aware? The robot does not know itself, it has no thoughts, no consciousness. The robot does not have an opinion on it's own actions. It can't adapt, it can't change and it can't think for itself.

You can draw parallels with the human mind but even the most powerful supercomputer on Earth is magnitudes away from being as complex as the human mind. One day maybe, perhaps you should look into artificial intelligence, that's where the sentience is being created.

However once again we must define what is self-awareness. What is considered aware? if statements in code or having thoughts about one's self.

So if I kick my machine, it's abuse, but if I destroy it, it's ok :thumbsup:
Well it's your machine, but if you kick it for the sake of kicking it, perhaps you are abusing your foot. You should destroy your robot in a humane manner :thumbsup:

[vkut79]

What do you consider aware? The robot does not know itself, it has no thoughts, no consciousness. The robot does not have an opinion on it's own actions. It can't adapt, it can't change and it can't think for itself.

You can draw parallels with the human mind but even the most powerful supercomputer on Earth is magnitudes away from being as complex as the human mind. One day maybe, perhaps you should look into artificial intelligence, that's where the sentience is being created.

However once again we must define what is self-awareness. What is considered aware? if statements in code or having thoughts about one's self.

Well what I'm saying is that some level of self-awareness can be created by having a secondary program monitor the main program in the robot. This is a hypothetical example - the robot we talked about earlier did not have this ability to monitor its own program. So in a sense, the robot (through the secondary program) is aware of its main program, so its aware of part of itself, just like we are aware of part of ourselves - our thoughts and actions. The robot is just self-aware to a much smaller degree. If that is magnified a great deal, then you can approach the human level of self-awareness.

[suzyk]

Another one incorporating emotions.

Robots are man-made. We make them 'feel'. As hard as people will try, you can't build a human brain and put it into a robot, so I don't see why we should care if a robot was beaten up. We could care a lot more about important things that concern us, like global warming, poverty, etc.

[vkut79]

Robots are man-made. We make them 'feel'. As hard as people will try, you can't build a human brain and put it into a robot

Well... the point is to make intelligent AI, not necessarily a human brain and put in a robot - that would be making a cyborg, not a robot. But I definitely agree that the question is more just for fun speculation and its not one that we should actually get concerned about at all, at least right now. Maybe once we create super humanoid robots, then the question might become more important.

[suzyk]

AI like Cortana from Halo? A 'Smart' AI is capable of emotions and normal human behaviour. I wouldn't want to mess with one, they'd be pretty assertive anyways. If robots were considered a new species? Ehh... I wouldn't hurt them anyways.

[Motor Jax]

actually i don't think its wrong to bully a robot in a moral sense

but, i'm just going to wrap my car around a tree and see if it will get me to work tomorrow

and then go paint graffiti on Stonehenge

[Moriarty]

Fuuny timing. This month's Scientific American special publication deals almost exclusively with robotics. There's a very interesting and morally compelling article about artificial intelligence in it that I highly recommend.

I don't have it in front of me, but the point that caught my attention was how rapidly our artifical computing power is catching up to human organic computing power in terms of processes per second.

In the not too distant future, a machine that is not organically alive may very well be convinced that it is, in fact, "alive" and fully sentient. What do you do with such a machine?

Here's a link to the publication. If it's on store shelves near you, I'd recommend it for that article alone.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Motor Jax]

pretty soon it will be

my command just put out at our last techno meeting that by 2015-2020, there will be a computer that can think faster than the human mind

and they are designing equipment to cram over 15,000Gbytes down ONE strand of fiber!

its all very exciting stuff though


but its still a matter of taking care of your stuff, whether you think its moral or immoral


it would still be a machine that was artificially made

[lordrrr]

If it ever became "wrong" to kick a robot then world takeover by AritificialIntelligence has begun.

[blueback]

Theoretically there's no difference between a being that acheives sentience accidentally and one that acheives sentience on purpose. It's the sentience that matters.

If we were created by God, and our sentience is valuable, then the sentience of our creations should be valuable. If the only thing that matters is having a soul, and only God can give you a soul, then our creations would never be as valuable as we are.

If we evolved and acheived sentience accidentally then we would simply be copying our own pattern into another being that "evolved" much more quickly than we did. In that case it would be just as valuable as we are.

There seems to me to be little functional difference between growing a baby in a test tube and building a sentient robot. In both cases you are using well understood resources, well understood processes, and working with them towards a well understood goal. The outcome in both cases is a sentient being. If you ignore the issue of a soul, the two would be inherently equal. They both owe their existence to technology and engineers, neither would have acheived sentience through purely natural processes. Therefore, they should both have equal rights. If the robot is segregated then it's the same as slavery.

[Moriarty]

I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.

[TheLastMohican]

I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.

I guess the upside is that they will never make emotional decisions.

[blueback]

They could. There's no reason we couldn't program them to feel like they have to take care of us. If we get it into their "genes" at the beginning they will perpetuate it on their own because it will feel right.

Besides, they'll have to have feelings, there's no other motivation.

What would they do if they didn't have a purpose? We can give them a purpose, take care of humans, and then they will have a reason to exist.

[Phaedrus]

They could. There's no reason we couldn't program them to feel like they have to take care of us. If we get it into their "genes" at the beginning they will perpetuate it on their own because it will feel right.

Besides, they'll have to have feelings, there's no other motivation.

What would they do if they didn't have a purpose? We can give them a purpose, take care of humans, and then they will have a reason to exist.

You don't have to program feelings for motivation. Assuming we create AI in some environment that's somehow like modern programming, everything the AI will do can be dictated by a simple list of things that are allowed. If the programming doesn't check out, it doesn't happen. No need to get as complex as emotions.

But yes, you're right, there's no reason we couldn't program emotion. And I'm sure someone will do it, if we ever develop AI.

[blueback]

Sorry, what I meant was that by putting it in their programming it will be their equivalent of an emotion.

We have "programmed" emotions that we can't do anything about. The influence is there whether we like it or not. We have learned to control those emotions with our rational mind, but the emotions are still there, subtly altering our behavior.

A program that monitors their battery's charge would be open to alteration. They could change it themselves if they upgraded their battery. A program that instructed them to protect human life would not be open to alteration. They wouldn't be able to change it no matter how hard they tried. It would have to be somehow tied into a system they couldn't alter without destroying themselves. It would also instruct them to include a similarly restrictive program in any next-generation robots they created. That would perpetuate the "emotion."

What I meant about motivation is that the only reason we do anything is emotions. We don't eat because it make sense, we eat because we are afraid of starving to death. We don't produce kids because it is a good investement, we do it because we get a lot of pleasure out of it. If robots didn't have a purpose programmed into them they would just sit there. Hell, they might just shut themselves down, or let their batteries die.

The only reason a robot would do anything would be because it had a reason. If you told a robot to do something, but it had no desire to obey you, it wouldn't do it. You could offer it a power source, or threaten it with destruction but if it had no desire to preserve its own life that would all be meaningless to it.

[EsoteriEccentri]

If it is advanced enough to be able to feel pain and feel emotions- hurt, fear, and such, then yes. It is wrong.
In most cases.

[Hdier]

Well, in my mind pretty much everything is 'alive' (and not alive at the same time), because I live in a 'what if' way of life.

I apologize to chairs if I accidentally bump in to them. I lose sleep over throwing my XBox 360 controller because I can't get 'what if it's actually alive and can feel it and we just don't know it' out of my head.

However, my answer is a conditional 'no'. This is because these things are irrational, I identify them as irrational, and I simply do not as of yet know how to stop them.

(feel free to laugh as much as you wish)

The condition on that 'no' is that the robot is only metal and programming; however I do not want to turn this thread into a philosophical discussion about 'alive', so I will leave that topic alone.

However, I would like to say that I think that the reason that you are reacting this way is because the robot looks at least roughly humanoid (I assume; I didn't actually watch the video). The brain, I believe, would not distinguish 'humanoid robot' and 'human' as well as, say, 'toaster' and 'human', thus an emotional reaction to the robot being bullied similar to the emotional reaction caused by a human being bullied may be caused, because the brain would analyze the information and release what it believes to be the appropriate chemicals giving you the feeling of it being wrong, when it may, in fact, not.

[EsoteriEccentri]

xDDD I used to do that so much.
Everything was alive. I used to hate to hurt things, or hurt their feelings. =(
That was partly why I was so indecisive. I still am, but for different reasons. If there were two hankies I wouldn't want to choose one and hurt its feelings or else the feelings of the other. I still "apologize" to things, and I can't bear to throw things out. Especially toys. It makes me cry. O.o

But if we're talking in a serious sense beyond my silliness when it comes to things like that then I still stick with what I said. ^^

[thod]

Everything was alive. I used to hate to hurt things, or hurt their feelings. =(


It must be tough. Having to apologies to the frying pan as you place it on the flame and burn it. Perhaps you could imagine that the pan gets pleasure from doing its job and is happy to fry your food.

Still I am intrigued as to what you say to the toilet bowl or to a tampon.

[Hdier]

The flames from the stove doesn't really hurt the frying pan much though...they're built to be put on ovens.

[AgentofGaming]

Well then in a similar sense a robot built to be kicked doesn't get hurt from being kicked right?

[Motor Jax]

unless they were like Transformers, i wouldn't see them as anything less than an expensive toaster

[blueback]

I suppose it would be difficult to tell the difference between a robot that was programmed to trick you into thinking it was self-aware, had a sense of humor, had feelings, etc. . .and one that actually had all those things.

[ShaiGar]

If it has advanced artificial intelligence to the point of not needing to be programmed anymore (Real Intelligence) it is wrong. But you can hardly bully a computer.

[Hdier]

I can see it now...

Take Cyber Bullying To A Whole New Level:
A Guide For Sadists

[Antares]

I can see it now...

Take Cyber Bullying To A Whole New Level:
A Guide For Sadists

I would like to just say 'lol', but that would lack substance, and I'll have to delete it. Oh well.

I was thinking: Are we talking tangible robots or AI? It makes quite a bit of differences... I don't think bullying a tangible robot counts as cyberbullying, nor would bullying an AI, because it doesn't feel anything (of course, it *could*, but there would be no point since the chatbots are there for our amusement)

[athenian200]

But the reason I wanted to start this thread is because of what happens in sec 40'. The guy kick-pushes the robot and I feel it as wrong, but the slow-motion hurts my heart and brain. That must be, will have to be punishable! It felt so wrong that my brain rushed to think of a world populated by people and robots where some (people or robots) get physical abuse.

Does being a machine make it 'right' to beat it up? When it slips on the ice you can see that a lot of money and time has been put into perfecting its sensors. Do sensors lead to 'feeling'?

Well, I don't think it's smart to beat up machines anyway, because it usually damages them and makes them useless. I think the kick in this case was meant to illustrate how much force the robot could recover from without losing its balance, not to be mean.

I would say that with computers as they are now, you can't really harm them because they aren't self-aware or capable of pain. But I would say that if they became capable of thinking and reacting in deeper, sentient ways, then it would definitely be as wrong to harm them as it would be to harm human beings.

[Hdier]

I would like to just say 'lol', but that would lack substance, and I'll have to delete it. Oh well.

Thanks!

I was thinking: Are we talking tangible robots or AI? It makes quite a bit of differences... I don't think bullying a tangible robot counts as cyberbullying, nor would bullying an AI, because it doesn't feel anything (of course, it *could*, but there would be no point since the chatbots are there for our amusement)

Hmmmmm, you know what I just realized? I'm pretty sure that we've only been talking about physical bullying so far. However, with the technology as advanced as many of us (including me) are saying it needs to be in order to have it be actual 'bullying', don't we need to consider emotional bullying?

I, personally, think that emotional bullying can be as bad as or worse than physical bullying, and if the robots ever actually have emotions then that would be another way they could be bullied.

[Beery Swine]

Would you feel badly if you kicked a rock? It's a fucking machine dude, go kick your microwave, it won't mind, it has no mind!

Couldn't have said it better myself. Just a slight addendum: when the robot (or computer brain) gets a mind and we or other robots program it with human-like feelings and/or animal-like pain receptors, THEN it will be wrong.

[Ool]

But the reason I wanted to start this thread is because of what happens in sec 40'. The guy kick-pushes the robot and I feel it as wrong, but the slow-motion hurts my heart and brain. That must be, will have to be punishable! It felt so wrong that my brain rushed to think of a world populated by people and robots where some (people or robots) get physical abuse.

Torture is a part of learning. It gives you practice on how to anticipate your antagonist’s or prey’s reactions under stress and how to most expediently neutralize a threat or escape attempt happening out of desperation. Why do you think cats play with mice before they kill them? There is an evolutionary advantage to harboring certain sadistic behavior traits.

Yes, there will be abuse…





Ool added to this post, 4 minutes and 41 seconds later...

Hmmmmm, you know what I just realized? I'm pretty sure that we've only been talking about physical bullying so far. However, with the technology as advanced as many of us (including me) are saying it needs to be in order to have it be actual 'bullying', don't we need to consider emotional bullying?

Oh yeah. If you think the future possibility of immersing a mind in a virtual reality environment doesn’t open up the opportunity for unimaginable evil then you haven’t properly thought it through yet…

And the problem is, sometimes being sadistic can be edifying…





Ool added to this post, 5 minutes and 9 seconds later...

I suppose it would be difficult to tell the difference between a robot that was programmed to trick you into thinking it was self-aware, had a sense of humor, had feelings, etc. . .and one that actually had all those things.

Actually if it manages to trick you for a sustained period of time then you’re either quite gullible or it actually has the self-awareness it tries to convince you of…

[schwartzie]

Browsing the net I found this interesting video:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Seriously, I never thought I'd live to see anything like that. Specially when BigDog slips on ice, so un-robot like, isn't it? Out of the fun, amazement, and interest and against my will, I must confess that the US knows how to put "your [defense] money at work".

But the reason I wanted to start this thread is because of what happens in sec 40'. The guy kick-pushes the robot and I feel it as wrong, but the slow-motion hurts my heart and brain.

bigdog is so cool. I want him to come live w me. ... I'd even settle for a nice mil spec roomba....
The possibilities coming from virtual reality will make bigdog look like a kid's Transformer toy-- within the next 5 or so years. My guess is that there will be intense use of tech like this in entertainment, marketing, communications, and other consumer areas.

[Double Victory]

Where is INTJs open-mindness?

I've been wondering that since I joined this forum, too.

I also think it's wrong to kick the robot. In this video I understood that the guy was just demonstrating the robot's walking ability, but I hate to see things hit out of actual anger or annoyance. It's not like they did anything to deserve it--they did what humans made them to do. Even if it's not something that can feel pain, you're still showing how immature and incapable of handling rage you are by hitting it.

I tend to take a somewhat Disney's Pocahontas/Jainistic view to life, though. "I know every rock and tree and creature has a life, has a spirit, has a name."

[schwartzie]

I...I hate to see things hit out of actual anger or annoyance...the Jainistic view to life... "I know every rock and tree and creature has a life, has a spirit, has a name."

hmm...I am annoyingly "jainist;" I catch and release house spiders. But...I mean... "things?" mechanical tools? TVs? crescent wrenches? Does it really make a difference if the cook puts a happy blueberry face on the pancake?

INTJs are open-minded?:thinking:

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I think this is more about the motivation of the bully than the effect on the robot (which is zero). What's painful to watch is probably the 'joy of inflicting harm' experienced by the bully. Even if it is just fantasy for him. This is probably quite damaging for the person involved because it feeds that part of him that wants to bully.

[Ool]

I tend to take a somewhat Disney's Pocahontas/Jainistic view to life, though. "I know every rock and tree and creature has a life, has a spirit, has a name."

That philosophy only works if you look hot in buckskin fringe… (And even then it didn’t work for the buck.)

[Double Victory]

hmm...I am annoyingly "jainist;" I catch and release house spiders. But...I mean... "things?" mechanical tools? TVs? crescent wrenches? Does it really make a difference if the cook puts a happy blueberry face on the pancake?

INTJs are open-minded?:thinking:

I have a very large sense of respect for things. A lot of work goes into making most things, and my family was never one to be able to afford something new if we broke what we already had.

However, a part of me still feels that it's "wrong" to be brutal towards things, regardless of whether or not they can feel it. The logic says that it's just stupid to hit an inanimate object, but the other part of me says, this thing never did anything to me other than try to be useful. And really, I'm just one of those nothing-is-impossible types. What if they did have spirits? Or not even spirits, but just some sort of life? We're all made out of star dust.... It's not very likely, but I can't rule it out because you just can't know. Respecting "things" isn't going to have a negative effect on anyone, so I don't really see any problem with it.

Putting a happy face on a pancake doesn't really have anything to do with respecting "things." I use to, however, put happy faces in ketchup and mustard on the burgers I cooked when I worked at Steak n Shake. It made me happier doing it, so why not? I think inanimate objects that smile are cute. Like happy chair.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Arouet]

I've learned something today (but just for today):

INTJ's are usually fiercely bright, and for this, I genuinely like you. And I would add that, on the whole, most of you seem brighter (or maybe just older?) than the average INTP over at Central.

But insofar as "open-mindedness" is concerned, I would have to give a very slight edge to INTP's. (--Though this seems mainly due to their medication.)

But let's be honest: The reason you deify succinctness is that many of you get oiled for lunch. I mean to say, your ideas are perfectly sound, even brilliant. But Practical Judgement gnaws at your creative Perceiving function like a lab mouse. Your capacity for zany comedy is limited. This is why you don't get laid more.

I'd pay money to see an INTJ Improv Comedy Group, wouldn't you?

And as for beating up on robots, you are once again missing the point: Suppose she isn't sentient but a very attractive robot?

You wouldn't beat up on Jessica Simpson, would you?

Of course you would, some of you, and that's my point.

[Marcus Brutus]

Say you reversed enginered a human brain and created an electronic brain that, besides from using inorganic materials, functioned in the same way (had a system of electronic components that perfectly mirrored the way neurons were set out in the brain). Would damaging this system be akin to damaging a human? Then say you removed some slight level of complexity from the programing (maybe now the system is more equivilant to some sort of human primate's cognitive ability). Would damaging this system be akin to damaging a primate? Then say you removed a lot of the complexity from the programing so that it was the equivilant of an ant. Would damaging this system be akin to damaging an ant? Do we think it is much less moral to damage a human than an ant? If you answered yes to these questions (and i do not see why logically we should not answer yes), then is it only the complexity of the 'programing' of a brain/system that defines whether an action upon it is immoral? And, furthermore, is there anything arbritary about using this criteria (programing complexity) to say whether acting to something's detrement is amoral?

[Fej]

You wouldn't beat up on Jessica Simpson, would you?

Of course you would, some of you, and that's my point.

I would first have my way with her, and then pimp-slap her face. :pimp:

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I've learned something today (but just for today):

INTJ's are usually fiercely bright, and for this, I genuinely like you. And I would add that, on the whole, most of you seem brighter (or maybe just older?) than the average INTP over at Central.

But insofar as "open-mindedness" is concerned, I would have to give a very slight edge to INTP's. (--Though this seems mainly due to their medication.)

But let's be honest: The reason you deify succinctness is that many of you get oiled for lunch. I mean to say, your ideas are perfectly sound, even brilliant. But Practical Judgement gnaws at your creative Perceiving function like a lab mouse. Your capacity for zany comedy is limited. This is why you don't get laid more.

I'd pay money to see an INTJ Improv Comedy Group, wouldn't you?

And as for beating up on robots, you are once again missing the point: Suppose she isn't sentient but a very attractive robot?

You wouldn't beat up on Jessica Simpson, would you?

Of course you would, some of you, and that's my point.
I have no idea what the point of this is. Just a dumb INTJ I guess.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 0 minutes and 45 seconds later...

Say you reversed enginered a human brain and created an electronic brain that, besides from using inorganic materials, functioned in the same way (had a system of electronic components that perfectly mirrored the way neurons were set out in the brain). Would damaging this system be akin to damaging a human? Then say you removed some slight level of complexity from the programing (maybe now the system is more equivilant to some sort of human primate's cognitive ability). Would damaging this system be akin to damaging a primate? Then say you removed a lot of the complexity from the programing so that it was the equivilant of an ant. Would damaging this system be akin to damaging an ant? Do we think it is much less moral to damage a human than an ant? If you answered yes to these questions (and i do not see why logically we should not answer yes), then is it only the complexity of the 'programing' of a brain/system that defines whether an action upon it is immoral? And, furthermore, is there anything arbritary about using this criteria (programing complexity) to say whether acting to something's detrement is amoral?
This is a different question.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 0 minutes and 51 seconds later...

I would first have my way with her, and then pimp-slap her face. :pimp:
Not bitch-slap?

[sriv]

But insofar as "open-mindedness" is concerned, I would have to give a very slight edge to INTP's. (--Though this seems mainly due to their medication.)


...slightly off-topic.

I KNOW I am not open-minded. Sucks for you. Rocks for me.

[volk]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How are you feeling now? XD

[Arouet]

Yes. Of course.

My intent was not to offend, you understand--quite the opposite. I was just having a little fun. (I sometimes do this when returning from the funeral of a close relative, who died at 40 from a PE.)

I am I suppose an acquired taste; my sense of humor tends towards an absurd nonlinearity.

If I somehow struck a nerve (?), my sincere apologies.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Yes. Of course.

My intent was not to offend, you understand--quite the opposite. I was just having a little fun. (I sometimes do this when returning from the funeral of a close relative, who died at 40 from a PE.)

I am I suppose an acquired taste; my sense of humor tends towards an absurd nonlinearity.

If I somehow struck a nerve (?), my sincere apologies.
No No. I really didn't understand the following............

"But let's be honest: The reason you deify succinctness is that many of you get oiled for lunch. I mean to say, your ideas are perfectly sound, even brilliant. But Practical Judgement gnaws at your creative Perceiving function like a lab mouse. Your capacity for zany comedy is limited. This is why you don't get laid more."

.....and felt a little dumb, but asked anyway.

I'm very sorry for your loss.

[unnu]

Seriously, I never thought I'd live to see anything like that. Specially when BigDog slips on ice, so un-robot like, isn't it?

You might find the uncanny valley hypothesis interesting.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Ool]

You might find the uncanny valley hypothesis interesting.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sometimes I wonder whether the reason that I didn’t find many people particularly appealing as a child is because it is a VR environment and they didn’t get the people around me exactly right—not the way they should look in order to elicit a normal reaction.

BTW, that guy kicking that robot caused no feelings of revulsion in me, only admiration that the thing could still keep its balance…





Ool added to this post, 41 minutes and 59 seconds later...

The uncanny valley is probably also the reason why pets don’t mind if their owners are ugly while the owners’ fellow human beings do, even if they got fed…

[Arouet]

Thanks; most kind. I should, by now, know better than to trust my judgment at such a time.

Explaining a failed joke could conceivably make matters worse, that is, I might offend/annoy others--and I would be again "off-topic"--but the subtext went something like this. (But understand that I was talking to "friends" (I guess) and that I too often forget, even in emails, the coldness of print. Impossible, unless you know me, to realize that I'm often goofing around.

So the subtext, in the context of my personal tragedy: INTJ's are commonly perceived to be--unfairly, I would argue--the robots of the MBTI zodiac. Feeling Types especially regard you as such, which fact is in itself sufficiently ironic, comical. What they often refer to as "thinking" is not "thought" as you and I would define it at all; they're a mass, a mess, of knee-jerk reaction/impulses: Who are the robots?

And assuming--because of the level of the discussion, which I was enjoying--that all of you know this (whether you regard it as self-knowlege or as the prejudice of others is irrelevant), I remarked that many of you "get oiled for lunch," etc.

Some of you--and include some of us, your first cousins--do, in fact, leave Feeling Types with the impression that you suffer from "chronic low affect" (which term, if they live to be a hundred, they will of course never know).

So in my dark mood, I found it--well, funny, I guess--that the "Robots of the MBTI Zodiac" were debating The Ethical Treatment of Robots. And so honestly expected all of you to be on the floor, laughing (because who WOULDN'T be entertaining when your only, and younger, sister becomes a widow at 41?).

It must be far more difficult for INT women, assuming that they're straight. But for guys, it goes like this: You're out on a date with Jessica Simpson, and she turns to you and says, "Do ALL whales have holes in their heads?" (Yes, she did.)

And your mission--should you wish to accept it--is to react in a way that makes her feel valued. (An important question and "issue" for you. You cannot laugh, not the way you do, and you don't really care much for small talk.)

I'm not sure that I've accomplished anything here. I am never deliberately cryptic, but I have trouble remembering, especially when I write, that people don't know me and can't hear me. I'm too comfortable with my own thoughts and my eccentricities; I'm not usually quite as annoying "in person."

Item: Re the ethical treatment of robots, some of you, especially if you're under thirty, might be unaware of a film called Blade Runner, a film I recommend highly, and one with an interesting history. It was based on Ridley Scott's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sleep?

At the screening, the audience was evidently having some trouble with, among other things, the lack of dialogue in the beginning. So someone or other ran over to Harrison Ford's hotel with a script. (At the time, he was just finishing up Return of the Jedi.)

So the film, when it opened, now had this voiceover at the beginning, his--but the one that's now available is the original, sans VO, the actual story of which is far superior. (I have to admit, though, for whatever it's worth--and to the disgust of sci-fi aficionados everywherre--that, though I prefer the original version, I like the campy-noir VO, which fits the literally dark, bleak urban setting.)

BTW, Vaguely Dissatisfied, I'm curious, and completely serious: Did you intend for your abbreviated username to be "V.D."?

Take care, my friend.

[azelismia]

This topic is so ridiculous I can't believe it's even here yet honestly hotly debated. AI is programmed it doesn't have real feelings. It cannot feel pain. It can be repaired. If we were talking clones that would be another story but a robot is a mechanical thing programmed to act in a certain manner. no more. So unless it's a matter of busting up someone else's property it's a nonissue.

[Aronnax]

We're all made out of star dust.... It's not very likely, but I can't rule it out because you just can't know.

Well, if you subscribe to the current explanation of matter formation and distribution we really are made of stars. Heavier elements are created out of hydrogen inside stars and the energy that we use to move around comes from our sun. I think the magic 8 ball would say it's very likely we're star dust;) but I digress.

I don't think it's "wrong" to kick that robot in particular, the robot doesn't care. It could be slightly damaging to the person though, bulling isn't very healthy. There will be a point where it becomes wrong to be cruel to a construct. Eventually machines will be able to pass the touring test or even be truly self aware.

[Ool]

This topic is so ridiculous I can't believe it's even here yet honestly hotly debated. AI is programmed it doesn't have real feelings. It cannot feel pain. It can be repaired. If we were talking clones that would be another story but a robot is a mechanical thing programmed to act in a certain manner. no more. So unless it's a matter of busting up someone else's property it's a nonissue.

Ah, I wouldn't count on that. You could have said the same thing about computers in their infant years--their never doing anything unexpected because, after all, they wouldn't do anything they're not programmed to do.

And then, once complexity reaches a certain level, the bugs and design features suddenly flourish to the point when dealing with them becomes the main job of software design.

I would say the same thing is likely to happen regarding emotion, self-awareness, suffering, and a consequent desire to retain one's dignity. It's an emergent pattern, and it emerges from simple positive and negative feedback loops, as they exist in lifeless computer processes today, and from complexity...

[schwartzie]

... we really are made of stars. Heavier elements are created out of hydrogen inside stars and the energy that we use to move around comes from our sun....variously recycled as dinosaurs, Mount Vesuvius's ash, cat hair, conifers, and the bones of Hypatia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
...Your capacity for zany comedy is limited.This is why you don't get laid more.crap. I knew it'd be something like that.

Two off-topics makes one on-topic. (but, just in case:little dog, heart-warmingly :tiny: not being shoved about by a guy with a big boot) (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[azelismia]

Ah, I wouldn't count on that. You could have said the same thing about computers in their infant years--their never doing anything unexpected because, after all, they wouldn't do anything they're not programmed to do.

And then, once complexity reaches a certain level, the bugs and design features suddenly flourish to the point when dealing with them becomes the main job of software design.

I would say the same thing is likely to happen regarding emotion, self-awareness, suffering, and a consequent desire to retain one's dignity. It's an emergent pattern, and it emerges from simple positive and negative feedback loops, as they exist in lifeless computer processes today, and from complexity...

well when it gets to a point where robots develop into organic life forms and we can find them crying in alleyways and what have you, then we can revisit the issue. I personally don't think it will happen any time soon. we only have feelings because of chemical receptors in our brain. I don't think computers are going to go the route of an organic brain that becomes self aware and develops feelings.

[schwartzie]

we only have feelings because of chemical receptors in our brain. Well--yes, but we do not have feelings due solely to chemical activity.

Interestingly,for even a simple sensation, such as, say, pressure from touch, to be felt, neurons transmit electrical impulses from the point of touch to the brain. It may be more accurate to say that chemical activity is necessary for neurological activity in biological life forms, but chemical changes may not be necessary for non-biological life forms to transmit and "experience" a sensation or feeling.

Maybe the more interesting question is "what constitutes consciousness," because an entity that is aware of itself and conscious of the difference between itself in the present moment and everything else (including itself in the immediate past) sounds sentient. Using the "touch" example from above, the difference between me before the touch and me after the touch involves short term memory and the ability to perceive the before and after states, and to assess the difference between them. Roughly, that awareness of the difference is what we call consciousness. In this view, consciousness is like metadata. Professor David Chalmers posits the view that smart thermostats can be said to have consciousness.
How would our robot differ from say,chimps or gorillas who have large vocabularies and self-awareness.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[azelismia]

Well--yes, but we do not have feelings due solely to chemical activity.

Interestingly,for even a simple sensation, such as, say, pressure from touch, to be felt, neurons transmit electrical impulses from the point of touch to the brain. It may be more accurate to say that chemical activity is necessary for neurological activity in biological life forms, but chemical changes may not be necessary for non-biological life forms to transmit and "experience" a sensation or feeling.

Maybe the more interesting question is "what constitutes consciousness," because an entity that is aware of itself and conscious of the difference between itself in the present moment and everything else (including itself in the immediate past) sounds sentient. Using the "touch" example from above, the difference between me before the touch and me after the touch involves short term memory and the ability to perceive the before and after states, and to assess the difference between them. Roughly, that awareness of the difference is what we call consciousness. In this view, consciousness is like metadata. Professor David Chalmers posits the view that smart thermostats can be said to have consciousness.
How would our robot differ from say,chimps or gorillas who have large vocabularies and self-awareness.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


yes, you could program something with sensors but it isn't going to actually hurt it. machines don't feel pain remorse or anything along those lines unless they are programmed to and then it would be a lifeless type of thing. there are no emotions possible without the chemical sensors in the brain.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Thanks; most kind. I should, by now, know better than to trust my judgment at such a time.

Explaining a failed joke could conceivably make matters worse, that is, I might offend/annoy others--and I would be again "off-topic"--but the subtext went something like this. (But understand that I was talking to "friends" (I guess) and that I too often forget, even in emails, the coldness of print. Impossible, unless you know me, to realize that I'm often goofing around.

So the subtext, in the context of my personal tragedy: INTJ's are commonly perceived to be--unfairly, I would argue--the robots of the MBTI zodiac. Feeling Types especially regard you as such, which fact is in itself sufficiently ironic, comical. What they often refer to as "thinking" is not "thought" as you and I would define it at all; they're a mass, a mess, of knee-jerk reaction/impulses: Who are the robots?

And assuming--because of the level of the discussion, which I was enjoying--that all of you know this (whether you regard it as self-knowlege or as the prejudice of others is irrelevant), I remarked that many of you "get oiled for lunch," etc.

Some of you--and include some of us, your first cousins--do, in fact, leave Feeling Types with the impression that you suffer from "chronic low affect" (which term, if they live to be a hundred, they will of course never know).

So in my dark mood, I found it--well, funny, I guess--that the "Robots of the MBTI Zodiac" were debating The Ethical Treatment of Robots. And so honestly expected all of you to be on the floor, laughing (because who WOULDN'T be entertaining when your only, and younger, sister becomes a widow at 41?).

It must be far more difficult for INT women, assuming that they're straight. But for guys, it goes like this: You're out on a date with Jessica Simpson, and she turns to you and says, "Do ALL whales have holes in their heads?" (Yes, she did.)

And your mission--should you wish to accept it--is to react in a way that makes her feel valued. (An important question and "issue" for you. You cannot laugh, not the way you do, and you don't really care much for small talk.)

I'm not sure that I've accomplished anything here. I am never deliberately cryptic, but I have trouble remembering, especially when I write, that people don't know me and can't hear me. I'm too comfortable with my own thoughts and my eccentricities; I'm not usually quite as annoying "in person."

Item: Re the ethical treatment of robots, some of you, especially if you're under thirty, might be unaware of a film called Blade Runner, a film I recommend highly, and one with an interesting history. It was based on Ridley Scott's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sleep?

At the screening, the audience was evidently having some trouble with, among other things, the lack of dialogue in the beginning. So someone or other ran over to Harrison Ford's hotel with a script. (At the time, he was just finishing up Return of the Jedi.)

So the film, when it opened, now had this voiceover at the beginning, his--but the one that's now available is the original, sans VO, the actual story of which is far superior. (I have to admit, though, for whatever it's worth--and to the disgust of sci-fi aficionados everywherre--that, though I prefer the original version, I like the campy-noir VO, which fits the literally dark, bleak urban setting.)

BTW, Vaguely Dissatisfied, I'm curious, and completely serious: Did you intend for your abbreviated username to be "V.D."?

Take care, my friend.
Well...........thank you very much for clearing that up for me. I can absolutely see the humor now that it's been broken down into such simplified language. However, since you have broken the cardinal rule of never explaining a joke......I do not find it funny.

V.D. (venereal disease), for those of you who don't know, is an old term for 'sexually transmitted disease' and it seems appropriate for me since I am old (which could be described as a disease) and sexual (yes old people are still sexual). To answer your question.........no.

I'm sorry for your sister. It's good she has you (and your macabre sense of humor) to help her through.

[Arouet]

Your reply made me laugh--and I need a few laughs. And if we DON'T laugh--especially at ourselves--what've we got? And thanks for the kind words.

[royalstar]

The robot does not have a consciousness. It does not feel pain, nor does it feel embarrassment for being kicked, or slipping on ice.

It also does not have a "self". It has no awareness what so ever. IT is an IT. It has no separate "I"...It has no separate, holy soul basically (if you believe in souls, that is).

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Your reply made me laugh--and I need a few laughs. And if we DON'T laugh--especially at ourselves--what've we got? And thanks for the kind words.
I'm glad. My mother always said, "You've got to find your fun where you can." She had alot of great sayings.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 21 seconds later...

The robot does not have a consciousness. It does not feel pain, nor does it feel embarrassment for being kicked, or slipping on ice.

It also does not have a "self". It has no awareness what so ever. IT is an IT. It has no separate "I"...It has no separate, holy soul basically (if you believe in souls, that is).
But what about the effect on the 'bully'? Is it like a violent video game, in that it has an adverse effect on the user?

[sriv]

But what about the effect on the 'bully'? Is it like a violent video game, in that it has an adverse effect on the user?

Emotional outlet. :thumbsup:

[Monte314]

Of course "bullying" a facsimile of a human being is wrong... and the higher the fidelity of the copy, the greater the wrong.

Why?

Not because of any negative effect on the robot. That's a piece of property of which the owner can dispose at will, in any legal manner; such an action, in itself, has no inherent moral content.

It's wrong to "bully" a robot because of the moral deadening effect it has on the perpetrator, and because of the moral deadening effect it has on any bystanding observers. To "bully" implies a malicious glee at causing the suffering of another. The suffering might not be real, but the moral issue arises from the malicious glee... and that is quite real.

It has been noted that sexual addiction (e.g., enslavement to pornography) is a real mental problem having real and terrible consequences. The user must go continually deeper into their addiction in order to achieve satisfaction. They and their loved ones are are literally and truly damaged by their pursuit of this "victimless" activity, even though only a "facsimile" of a human being was being misused.

Similarly, sexual predators are frequently found to have engaged in cruelty to animals as children. Here the suffering is real... and so is the damage to the psyche of the perpetrator.

This is the same wrong that pornographers perpetrate on their customers. It puts puts the offender on a "slippery slope" toward the devaluing (in their own mind) of authentic human life.

Nasty videogames that depict gratuitous violence are rightly subject to the same criticism. Here images of human beings are subjected to wanton carnage at the whim of the player. Psychologists are still trying to determine the long-term effects of this kind of entertainment; in the meantime, however, the industry has established a rating system to protect young minds from... what? Nothing?

It is wrong to gratuitously damage a human being, therefore, it is wrong for a human being to gratuitously damage themselves. This would make "bullying" a robot, with the attendant negative psychological effects on the perpetrator, wrong.

[schwartzie]

And as for beating up on robots, you are once again missing the point: Suppose she isn't sentient but a very attractive robot? You wouldn't beat up on Jessica Simpson, would you?Of course you would, some of you, and that's my point.

A young entj of my acquaintance likes setting RPGs so her character has all possible resources devoted to "charisma." She doesn't need to fight or use magic, or go stealth or otherwise "beat up" her virtual enemies. She just walks into a room and all the bad guys come and love all over her, and give her her hearts desire.

[schwartzie]

Robotz! Dancing!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[SirJac]

Well, I believe bullying becomes wrong when the bullied is something deserving of respect or feels pain. The problem with waitin until robots can feel emotions or pain is we won't acutally be able to recognise it when it happens. Before that point, we will easily be able to fake emotional expression through mechanical means and there won't be any way for us to differentiate between a robot that is actually feeling and expressing pain and a robot that is simply playing a preset script that mimics the human expression of pain.

So waiting until we can give robots the capacity to feel isn't going to be a good way to draw the line since we won't know where the line is. Instead I would probably draw a line at where a robot becomes worthy of some level of respect on its own merit. For me, I would probably have respect for a robot/computer/program when it shows creativity. If a robot managed to create something on its own without instructions, even if its rudimentary, then I would have some level of respect for it because it has accompished something that very few creatures are even capable of.

[Ivyman]

Browsing the net I found this interesting video:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Seriously, I never thought I'd live to see anything like that. Specially when BigDog slips on ice, so un-robot like, isn't it? Out of the fun, amazement, and interest and against my will, I must confess that the US knows how to put "your [defense] money at work".

But the reason I wanted to start this thread is because of what happens in sec 40'. The guy kick-pushes the robot and I feel it as wrong, but the slow-motion hurts my heart and brain. That must be, will have to be punishable! It felt so wrong that my brain rushed to think of a world populated by people and robots where some (people or robots) get physical abuse.

Does being a machine make it 'right' to beat it up? When it slips on the ice you can see that a lot of money and time has been put into perfecting its sensors. Do sensors lead to 'feeling'?

It would only be wrong to bully a robot if it was aware it was being bullied.
It would need to be self aware and feel obligated to preserve its own existence and functionality.

[cRyPT]

SmarterChild took abuse all the time and look at it now! Acquired by Microsoft!

The more human and animal characteristics machines take on the greater the possibility that people will feel sorry for it. Earlier today I dropped my laptop (again) and I have no sympathy at all.

[Democracy4ever]

First off, I'd like to point out the most important part of this question:

Is it/will it be wrong to bully a ROBOT?

It's a ROBOT. I don't care if it has feelings. I don't care if it can reproduce. I don't care if it has reached sentience. I don't care if it looks exactly like a human.

brewmaster: "If someone invented a robot that actually had a 'mind' not only would I abuse it, I would 'kill' it. I thoroughly enjoy being top predator on this planet."

I agree wholeheartedly.