NP - Ban on robot...what?

[David Morris]

I think there are many people who would wish to create artificial life as
you describe it: "AI whose chief goal is individual independence, freedom
and self-determination (it's the good Ol' American Dream!)"  Ego knows no
limits.  Like genetic engineering, it is a real danger for the future of
what we now call humanity. Or maybe it is our next evolutionary step. As
technology, AI and genetic engineering will probably merge. I fear genetics
far more than AI.
David Morris

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreed. If someone decides their goal is to program an AI whose chief
> goal is individual independence, freedom and self-determination (it's
> the good Ol' American Dream!) then maybe this'll be more than a
> philosophical problem. I don't know why anyone would do that, though,
> or why a future AI would come to that conclusion on its own. I don't
> think my toaster resents its function.
>
> The original article is more about humans arguing against sex robots
> because of the impoverished relationships between real humans that
> would result. I think there's something to that argument, although it
> does essentialise a particular 'natural' kind of relationship that
> ignores a lot of the diversity in human interaction. Films like Ex
> Machina (or that older film Lars and the Real Girl) are more nuanced
> examinations of *why* someone might want a relationship with a
> non-human humanoid.
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:29 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > In other words, AI to be discussed post-singularity is no longer AI.  It
> > would then be a living being, and would be expected to dislike slavery.
> >
> > David Morris
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >> The spectrum of prostitution now has sex-worker rights advocates, so
> >> values are elastic.
> >>
> >> AI in this discussion implies slavery, involuntary submission (BTW this
> >> has nothing to do w the initial story), but why would sex with a human
> be
> >> viewed by an AI as different than any other act of service? Sex isn't
> the
> >> issue. Involuntary servitude is the issue. And beneath that question is
> the
> >> one of self-knowing and agency Vs programming.  Everything else is just
> >> projection.
> >>
> >> David Morris
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, September 15, 2015, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> But why would an AI care what people are doing to sexbots? There are
> >>> more (human) sex slaves now than at any time in history and you don't
> >>> see the rest of humanity rising up to end the injustice. It's always
> >>> been a strange fantasy that machines will have some kind of mass group
> >>> solidarity that humans generally lack.
> >>>
> >>> Ex Machina was a must-see film though. Does complicate the usual
> >>> questions by making gender such an explicit focus.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:39 AM, David Kilroy <
> thesaintgodard at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > To be fair, it's not my turf. Bierce was here first. cf. 'Moxon's
> >>> > Master'
> >>> > -
> >>> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> >>> -
> >>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150915/144a4465/attachment.html>