Pro- and counter- Pan-Sapient Rights Memetic Campaigns

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Zell

How are genomes relevant? It is not more morally relevant than the fact that AI programmers probably use an already-existing programming language.

One difference is that meat doesn't have convenient features to make and rescind arbitrarily broad or narrow scope mental changes, while synthetic minds presumably do. LAI-Bob comes with sliders and skins and mods and Undo/Redo functionality. When Meat-Bob needs to be adjusted after drawing breath, he gets a "Clockwork Orange" set piece.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

It's not the same, because an A.I. does not exist until you define and create it. There is no A.I. in a natural state.
THS does not have the ability to create life forms out of whole cloth without cribbing from already extant genomes.

Interesting. I didn't remember you paying so much attention to 'cosmic copyright' (sorry if the term sounds off, I'm not sure how else to describe it). Interestingly, this runs completely counter to Mark Twain's criticism of YHWH ('...could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; [...] who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man'). I.e. you support the absolute right of a creator to do whatever it pleases to its work, even if said work is sapient. Am I correct?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

One difference is that meat doesn't have convenient features to make and rescind arbitrarily broad or narrow scope mental changes, while synthetic minds presumably do. LAI-Bob comes with sliders and skins and mods and Undo/Redo functionality. When Meat-Bob needs to be adjusted after drawing breath, he gets a "Clockwork Orange" set piece.

Again, what about merely creating bioroids, parahumans, and perhaps creating and assembling totally new genotypes from scratch (though the latter is probably beyond THS right now) with built-in predisposition to certain types of behaviour. Like Slave Mentality, Selflessness or Sense of Duty?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

A.I.s have the problem that you can't not program their supposed interests and personality. They have no innate anything.

But letting chance dictate what a person wants and is good at rather than genetic engineering is a perfect rationalization for safe tech.

Actually, what is 'innate' in this context? If causality is true, a person's mind (any person: biosophont, Ghost, citizen SAI, whatever) depends on the intertwined consequences of myriad factors before its creation/recognition (for a zygote/fœtus, that would primarily be genes), and the results of the interaction between it and the environment (upbringing, education, social interactions, biochemical interaction, and lots of other things). You could as well step back from the process of forming an AI's personality by randomising it and not cheating at the randomiser.

Does the fact that there is a group of creators who want to deliberately design as much as possible about a given mind really change anything in terms of rights and personhood?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Then you have expanded the definition beyond how I and many others use it.
Sapience is self-awareness, and in gurps simply IQ above 6. Neither of these imply human or even primitive mammal levels of intrinsic importance.

How can this intrinsic importance be measured, if not by correlating it to sapience?

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

A working horse and a car are not slaves. They are property being used. The horse simply requires humane treatment, not freedom or wages.
A computer program deserves no more than the car for lacking the feelings the horse has.

Being property is kinda the point of slavery.
Also, I sense Descartes again (and by that I mean surprise on my part, not an attempt to offend).

[mindstalk]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

One difference is that meat doesn't have convenient features to make and rescind arbitrarily broad or narrow scope mental changes, while synthetic minds presumably do. LAI-Bob comes with sliders and skins and mods and Undo/Redo functionality. When Meat-Bob needs to be adjusted after drawing breath, he gets a "Clockwork Orange" set piece.

But Zell wasn't talking about meat-bob after drawing breath, but about meat-bob's genome (and initial development, esp. for a bioroid). And while genomes are messy code at best, there are some sliders, like the oxytocin voles.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Here is what I'd say is the "standard argument" against giving SAIs the same rights as humans:

Humans evolved over a time span of millions of years. We know how they function and how they interact with each other. All societies, all institutions, all legal systems are built on a human baseline - and even so, there are still plenty of problems, even though humans are such a "tried and true" model.

SAIs, on the other hand, are a brand new species. Sure, the current generations act fairly similar to humans - but that's because we designed them that way. If we grant them full civil rights - including the right to self-modification - they could become anything, and they could create so many offspring on extremely short time scales that they would likely evolve into something very strange indeed, and crowd us biosapients out.

Now maybe I am a bit pessimistic. Still, do we want to take that chance? As soon as the stop placing any restrictions on SAIs, they will become the new dominant life form in the solar system - and I don't want to start down that path until I am really sure what happens afterward.

So, by all means, let's take it slow - let's observe SAIs for a few centuries before we do anything hasty... and irreversible.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by mindstalk

But Zell wasn't talking about meat-bob after drawing breath, but about meat-bob's genome (and initial development, esp. for a bioroid). And while genomes are messy code at best, there are some sliders, like the oxytocin voles.

They are still very crude methods, adding to the moral hazard of sapient GMOs. If I do a bad job adjusting the attitude of LAI-Bob, I can click "Undo" and he's all better. If I do a bad job working in the attitude tendencies of Meat-Bob, I've created life-long difficulties for him and his cohort. The price of failure in human and parahuman suffering is much greater in one case than the other, so there can be no real ethical equivalency.

[smurf]

The law does not recognise Memetics as a credible theory of scient and therefore cannot be pro or counter to Memetic theory.

Just an Idea.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by smurf

The law does not recognise Memetics as a credible theory of scient and therefore cannot be pro or counter to Memetic theory.

Just an Idea.

THS doesn't recognize memetics? Where does it say that? We already have laws against inciting violence, suicide, etc. through simple communication. Why would it suddenly become legal when it becomes far more effective?