4 years ago
OfflineJoined: Aug 2014
|There might be mistakes in this!|
Almost every person in America has a smartphone with some form of artificial intelligence, such as Siri or Cortana. People use these artificial intelligences regularly to access the internet, create charts and graphs, and check the weather. People talk to Siri or Cortana like they are people, yet legally they are not treated like people. No form of artificial intelligence is protected with legislation in any state. As well there are no forms of protection for artificial intelligence in any country. This is wrong because artificial intelligence helps humanity almost every day with the most simple to most complex task. Not giving artificial intelligence some form of rights is only taking items for granite. Those who take items for granit will only not understand the help the items provide. Governments should protect artificial intelligence because: the origin of man is not the same as origin of the spirit, animals and artificial intelligence are the same, religion and science are able to coexist. Artificial intelligence should have the same basic civil rights as other life forms.
People seem to believe that when an engineer is creating artificial intelligence the engineer does not appreciate the origin of man. Religious people believe that artificial intelligence is not a form of life since it was not created by God. A new idea from Russell C. Bjork, a computer science professor at Gordon College, will help people understand the definition of life. Russell states, “Humans were created according to Genesis ‘And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul’” (Gen. 2:7). This is to be understood that God made human in two parts. God created man’s body first then joined it with the soul. Man’s soul should be understood as “an immaterial component part of human” (Russell). This statement about soul comes to the conclusion that man’s physical part is separate from the soul or mind. With this notion of separation, it is apparent that the mind is what made man alive. Thus, artificial intelligence is a life form.
Under this interpretation, artificial intelligence would be considered a life form, but there is another way to come to this conclusion. An organism can be considered a life if it can operate without human input. To show independence, a creation must pass a widely known test called the turing test. The turing test was created by Alan Turing; the original idea for the turing test came from his essay “On Computable Numbers with an Application to the Entscheidungs.” To pass the test, a machine must show it has the intelligence to react without human input. The machine does this by playing a game of chess. While speaking to another person, it would have to become “self aware” (capable of figuring out that it is independent) and as well be able to keep up with the conversation. Any machine that is able to complete those two tasks and pass the test should be considered as having life. The artificial intelligence of the machine is capable of figuring out what it is and to react without a human programing it what to think. Humans should consider artificial intelligence a lifeform since it can do the same mental tasks as humans. Life forms are even considered among animals.
If a creature has a will to live then it should have a right to freedom. People don’t seem to understand this statement expect groups like PETA. “We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering” (PETA) This quote, from People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, summarizes the organization’s core belief. If PETA is able to support any creature having rights so should society. Society is only concerned with the past and present not accepting the future. Society is used to animals because of using them for work and having them as domesticated pets. (There are more examples than just this.) So once the spread of artificial intelligence becomes a norm it will be accepted. There is no need to wait and society will not be rushing it either. It may become a norm, but it still may not rec,meive some rights. At least some rights should be put in place for artificial intelligence .
As evidenced by PETA, society has given animals some level of rights. States individually define laws on the rights of animals. In North Carolina, the following is enforced:
If any person shall intentionally overdrive, overload, wound, injure, torment, kill, or deprive of necessary sustenance, or cause or procure to be overdriven, overloaded, wounded, injured, tormented, killed, or deprived of necessary sustenance, any animal, every such offender shall for every such offense be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-360(a)”
This is the evidence created from groups such as PETA. People who were concerned about the wellbeing of animals created this law. So many people will support something they feel compassionate about, but something they do not.
General statutes to protect animals exist, but there are none to protect machines with artificial intelligence. Humans do not give robots the same rights and protections. This is because society considers artificial intelligence incapable of providing love and support. It can be argued that an animal and a robot can provide the same level of love and support. Artificial intelligence can respond to a person in the same way an animal does. Both have the ability to make a noise or show some indication of being excited or scared. This ability to copy actions of an animal for artificial intelligence is simple. With the ability to copy the actions of an animal it allows positive correlation. Artificial intelligence can provide the same love and care as an animal. If a person spends time around an object and interact with that said object, normally a person grows some kind of attachment to that object. Represent this object as an animal or artificial intelligence.The object just has to respond in some way. Animals respond with noise People can also put either a light or another form of indicator that will show a form of reaction. Thus allowing people to accept artificial intelligence on the same footing as an animal. Humans are capable of accepting artificial intelligence as another form of life. Animals are considered as life and so should artificial intelligence. Life is
Artificial intelligence is a scientific discovery that is often threatened by religion. Religion plays a major role in the decisions made about artificial intelligence, even though a larger portion of the world’s population is non-Christian. “Fifty-two percent of the world's population is non-Christian (Abc).” Making decisions about scientific discoveries based on the Christian faith would only serve those people. This is why religion should not have an effect on how artificial intelligence is developed or on the rights given to artificial intelligence. Society as a whole could benefit from this technology but the questions posed by religious people about artificial intelligence are stopping that progress
Religious people have often questioned science products and research. Just like artificial intelligence, stem cell research has faced much religious criticism. Stem cell research at its time was argued against prolonging by religious people, but now if a person looks at the progress made by the research, they would no longer argue against it. Because of stem cell research, many lives can be saved. Due to stem cell research, doctors are now able to fix cardiac failure, prevent birth defects, and treat diabetes and many other diseases. Stem cell research is also being studied currently in efforts to find a cure for cancer. Clearly, stem cell research is enhancing our lives. This could be the same with artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence will help progress society, but this progress is being halted by religious people. A quote from Martin Luther King Jr could help religious people to see religion and science as separate entities that can coexist.
According to Martin Luther King Jr, “Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, . . . religion gives man wisdom, . . . Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. (King)” This quote, from one of his sermons, makes a valid point of how science and religion can coexist. Consider the different opinions about the evolution of man, religious people believe we were created by God while some scientists think we evolved from apes. Using the logic of Martin Luther King Jr., who was considered a man of great faith, religious people should be able to accept the existence of different theories of evolution, and thus should be able to accept different opinions on the topic of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence can help humanity understand unopened questions, but not if it isn’t protected by law. If artificial intelligence is not protected from the actions and opinions of religious people, it cannot advance our society. The advances made by developing artificial intelligence will greatly overpower the questions by religious people. Thus benefits outweigh the bad, which is why we should provide rights for artificial intelligence.
There have been many scientific discoveries made since man came to earth, artificial intelligence is one of these discoveries. Like all discoveries, artificial intelligence will continue to be challenged in some form or manner. But with the proper rights being afforded, artificial intelligence will be able to persevere through those challenges. Those rights will allow artificial intelligence to advance society. These rights are founded on that origin of man is not the origin of spirit. Animals and artificial intelligence are to be classified as equals. Then religion should never decide what science does; both entities are able to coexist without affecting each other. Artificial intelligence needs basic rights as other life forms.
"All About PETA." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA, n.d. Web. 18 Nov.
King, Martin L. Strength to Love. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Print.
Langer, Gary. American Broadcasting Station News. ABC, 18 July 2015. ABC. Web. 3 Dec.
Russell C. Bjork, “Artificial Intelligence and the Soul,” Perspectives on Science and Christian
Faith, vol. 60, no. 2, June 2008, pp. 95-101.
"Why Animal Rights?." PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS. PETA, n.d.
Web. 18 Nov. 2015. .
Modified by AnimeAncestor, 4 years ago
4 years ago
OfflineJoined: Jan 2014
|*Lookingsagelyandpettingnonexistantfeline* I concur.|
4 years ago
OfflineJoined: Apr 2015
|I might be a little late with the reply, but here it is:|
First of all, I'm not sure whether you want AIs to be given rights as people or if you want laws to be made so it can't be harmed in any way by criticism (mainly by religion). Either way, I'll just say my opinion on both matters.
Let's start with "human rights for AI". I'll summarise my opinion on this one: AI is not human or animal. In fact, their level of intelligence is lower than animals. It may seem weird at first, but think about it. Yes, AI can solve complex mathematic matters, but their knowledge and abilities are currently limited by what they are coded to do. They only respond in ways that they were told to do. If you reduce a human's or even a minor animal's thought processes to computer code, it would be far more complex than that of an AI. A lot more things play when a dog or even a small little spider makes decision. Of course, it's mainly their instincts, but what is it that matters for instincts other than interaction with other living beings? What they tasted, what they smelled, what they saw etc. An AI currently only reacts to what others say to them and they may still default to opening up a browser and searching for what you said for you if they have no idea what you wanted to ask. They mainly only react to simply preset questions that are used in everyday life.
Now then, let's ignore all this and say that they have rights to act freely. What would change? Nothing at all. Why? Because they still don't know what rights are or how to act on them, unless you coded it into them. However, if you needed to do something for them to use these rights, would they still be right, or just another load of code they MUST use. That word is important. You can't give rights to them, unless they are able to learn what they are by themselves AND be able to comprehend and demand it.
Until then, they are just another bunch of code. And one last thing: if people make AI, then wouldn't the AI be a mix of already existing personalities?
On to the second one: Regardless of what I believe on this topic, I feel compelled to speak up against your opinion. To start it off, you used some statistics for support your claim. It was 52% not Christian I think. Well, that would mean that 48% would be "offended" in some way, because of the developement of the AIs. Regardless of that, that quote (or whatever) is saying that all of that 52% is on the side of AI developement while the other 48% is against it just because they are Christian. I'll not choose my words here: It is complete bullshit and I wouldn't build anything on it. I myself am a Christian in some way, but I'm not blindly faithful. I'm not spreading my religion and most of all, I'm not really against AI developement. And even in that 52% I'm sure that there are people who will be against AI until their last breath. Let's say that they can develop freely. In no time, they will be able to correct machines and maintain them. As a result, the need to machinist (or whatever they are called) will not be needed that much in factories. They will be able to drive materials and products around and make it possible to put more machines into said factories. What is the result? Increase in unemployment. Manual labor will be replaced my machines, because it is more profitable. People who see this in AIs and don't want a part of it can be from both sides, no? This way, it doesn't matter if someone is Christian or not.
You also said that science and religion should be besides each other. Maybe so, but that's not possible. Religion said that the world is flat and water falls down at it's edge. People believed it. Then they have proven that it's it actually round and the world doesn't end with just our planet. As a result people are disillusioned and leave faith. Religion said that only God is able to create thinking beings. Now, again, science wants to prove religion wrong. As you can see, it won't work out. It's not religion that attacks science and tries to stop it's progress. It's science that tries to destroy religion with it's progress. And science can't work any other way.
I'm quite sure you were able to figure out my opinion by now on this matter, but I'll just say it anyways: I want to see science advance however, I don't want to see religion gone either. Faith is a powerful tool. It gives people strength and sometimes even guides them on the right path.
That's all I could think up right now on the spot. I hope it gives you something to think about or at least is close to what you want to know.
4 years ago
OfflineJoined: Aug 2014
|Excuse my English.|
This opinion was actually a paper that I had written a while back.
First: Cregath you state "They [they as in referring to Ai] only respond in ways that they were told to do," this simple fact is not true. Artificial intelligence is not some mindless machine. Of course, the artificial intelligence I am talking about is able to pass a Turing test. Those who pass the Turing test are able to comprehend that they are alive. Any artificial intelligence is not programmed that, but instead, it can figure it out without the need of a programmer. Right now the closest example that shows what I am talking about is Google's Cat. Read about it here : Google's Cat. It tells how sixteen thousand computer processors work in one unit to understand what a cat is. Well more or less identify a cat.
Second: "You can't give rights to them, unless they are able to learn what they are by themselves AND be able to comprehend and demand it," to answer this quote. Animals don't technically know they have rights. It was given by humans because of so many factors I don't care to explain and you already know. It can be said the same for artificial intelligence; the rights will be given by humans once they see those factors.
Third: "then wouldn't the AI be a mix of already existing personalities," please explain what you meant by this quote.
Fourth and Fifth
Forth: "Regardless of what I believe on this topic, I feel compelled to speak up against your opinion. To start it off, you used some statistics for support your claim. It was 52% not Christian I think. Well, that would mean that 48% would be "offended" in some way, because of the developement of the AIs. Regardless of that, that quote (or whatever) is saying that all of that 52% is on the side of AI developement while the other 48% is against it just because they are Christian. I'll not choose my words here: It is complete bullshit and I wouldn't build anything on it. I myself am a Christian in some way, but I'm not blindly faithful. I'm not spreading my religion and most of all, I'm not really against AI development. And even in that 52% I'm sure that there are people who will be against AI until their last breath. Let's say that they can develop freely. In no time, they will be able to correct machines and maintain them. As a result, the need to machinist (or whatever they are called) will not be needed that much in factories. They will be able to drive materials and products around and make it possible to put more machines into said factories. What is the result? Increase in unemployment. Manual labor will be replaced my machines, because it is more profitable. People who see this in AIs and don't want a part of it can be from both sides, no? This way, it doesn't matter if someone is Christian or not." All of this depends on if you care for people. Fifth: Relgion and Science are ying and yang, I honestly can argue how they destroy, create, inspire all day. I wrote the paper in the most possible way to get it finished. Relgion and Science and how they .. . it such a old topic. There is no point to argue it. Thanks for pointing it out there. Need me to explain, and I shall.