Human rights for robots or robot rights for humans?

i wonder if women will be given the same rights as humans by 2056?

its not a laughing matter from where i stand.

some things are, but women's humanity isnt one of them. i guess repeated denial of something as simple as humanity kind of gets to me that way.

oh, btw - that "women/feminists have no sense of humour" crap? thats part of the denial of humanity i'm talking about. a smallish part, sure, but still important.

Apart from the fact that this has nothing to do with the subject being discussed, which some people may be interested in, in the vast majority of western countries women do have exactly the same rights as men. In the UK for example the only difference I can think off is in the laws of succession. That probably would stand up in law if there was somebody to challenge it. Admittedly this is not true all over the world, but the situation of women in countries where they have equal rights suggests that rights are not the problem.

Nobody said anything about women not having a sense of humour. It was said about you.

Why don't you go, and troll on another thread.

Devrim

oh that could really hurt devrim - except waitup - you dont know me, and he doesnt know me, so it really is just the sameold sexist swipe, made even more ridiculous than usual by it's timing. as for trolling - fool, i didnt blunder massively off topic by drawing attention to the fact that human rights are not, in fact, universal. yes, regardless of little bits of paper, "laws" and "declarations" and such (the overwhelming majority of which are written by men and for the benefit of men, let us remember) - there is no universal standard for human rights, and whether you like it or not thats a relevant part of this discussion - i mean, which human rights are robots gonna get?

so i was not, as a matter of fact, trolling, just making a point in as simple a way as i could. swooped right over your head though didnt it? and looking over our posts, im thinking that if anyone is going to be accused of anything here, it would be jack, then you, for flaming. but as i dont give even the tiniest niblick of shit what you or jack have to say about me, i could care less. flame on, fuckwit.

Anyway, back to the discussion;

I certainly don’t believe in a soul, or mystical life, and I agree with you, to say something is impossible is ridiculous. I take it back. It is very hard though.

I think a lot of it comes down to what intelligence is. Certainly my computer can beat me at chess, and perform lots of other tasks better than I can. That does not make it intelligent though. I think that there is more to intelligence than running algorithms, even if they are algorithms designed to simulate intelligence. Of course, another argument would be that humans only run an algorithm.

Anyway I think that there is a long way to go in creating AI.

Try chatting to A.L.I.C.E.: (http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=f5d922d97e345aa1), winner of the Lobner Prize, (http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html)

Devrim

A.L.I.C.E., and I this morning:

try living your life backwards in time.

as for those alogo-thingies unless they can produce feelings, you can forget intelligence. the truth is AI is almost as far away as it was sixty thousand years ago, in meaningful terms.

why thank you.

One of these days your going to come out and tell us your really just a msygonist bloke who got dumped for a lesbian when his wife started reading Dworkin and it's all been elaborate plan to discredit all feminism.

Seriously you couldn't be anymore of a charicature.

oh look, its my own personal stalker.

hey devrim - i dont notice you commenting on either jacks or revols off topic comments, derailing the thread with their own sad little vendettas. more double standards?

this is so fucking pathetic, what a sad bunch you are.

Oh don't you just wish.

Yes, fine, everybody here hates you because you're a woman and the fact that you're incapable of putting up a decent argument for your positions and positively outraged at the notion that a thread about robots is nothing to do with feminism has nothing to do with it.

Happy now?

come on madashell, you're not really that vacant.

1 - this thread is about human rights for robots - read the initial post again - and my post was on topic.

2 - the responses ive had have been so obviously sexist that its almost beyond belief that anyone would deny it.

3 - whilst my post was on topic, there are four of you in a row deliberately derailing the thread just to have a go at me - revol, devrim, jack, and now you. this isnt about me, its about you - about the way you'll all pack up together to have a go even when you're wrong!

i wasnt off topic and even if i had been going off topic is not a big deal, and in any case you are all guilty of that right here right now. what you lot are doing is very transparent bullying and derailing.

Bullying?

I thought I was engaged in some kinky psychological foreplay, I thought my insults meant something but apparently you see them as interchangeable with the Devrim's, Jack's, and Madashell's.

I am distraught, I am falling backwards into the void between the stars....

Yes, it is derailing. I will reply on the 'flaming thread'. Can we move it off here please.
Devrim

Your initial post was glib and only tangentally related to the topic. You'll do anything to drag the fetid corpse of radical feminism into a thread, won't you?

Little hint, when you're the only person who thinks something, it's not really "obvious" in the traditional sense of the word, and probably not true.

Drop the victim complex and you might even notice that you're not the only one that people argue with on here.

sure, but that doesnt mean im going to stop commenting on this thread and about this topic.

could you give me an example of a response from me that has been obviously sexist?

derail! off topic! troll!

there will be calls to ban you, you know.

I don't know if you've noticed but there have been calls for my banning for quite a while now.

I even have my own thread, something you can only dream of.

derail! off topic! troll!

and of course i noticed, dumbass. you are slow this evening.

ah, the dream of AII (Actual Intelligence on the Internet)it is still little further than it was twenty years ago in meaningful terms.

Agreed. Instead of focusing on actual low-level intelligence, AI proponents have been perfecting expert systems.

What is necessary for the type of intelligence that we typically call "intelligent" is something that can learn complex behaviors without it being hard-coded. We shouldn't be focusing on language parsing, we should be focusing on something that can learn how to parse a language on its own like an infant.

erm my post was a joke. AI is basically f*cked as it is focussed on logic and learning behaviour appropiate to the enviroment, which while a possibly solvable set of problems, it si the least useful componets of 'intelligence' in the real world.

And yet your point was valid; Artificial Intelligence today can hardly be called intelligence, and the direction it has taken for the past three decades will only further the narrow expert system mentality of its advocates.

But as for the intelligence I assume you speak of: when you boil it down to its most basic parts, it is nothing more than the emergent properties of a complex system--a computational neural net. We've already figured out how the nervous system communicates (at least enough to allow the human brain to control robotic appendages as it would a normal arm), and on the microscopic level we know very well how neurons work, quantitatively and qualitatively.

Our greatest hurdle is dissecting how it all works in concert--which I suspect can only be solved by experimentation, not mere observation. And since it's quite unethical to experiment as such on humans, it makes perfect sense to emulate the human brain in a computer environment. It's a perfectly plausible way of creating true AI.

Unfortunately, the computational capacity for that is at *least* thirty years away, and that's provided that the current rate of computational power continues to increase exponentially.

So perhaps expert systems are the best we can do right now--but it surely isn't the true domain of AI.

I tried to talk to Alice, unfortunately only a few responses stay on the page. She's rather like arf, in that she responds to a question with a statement that doesn't actually respond to the question. One of her responses was exactly like one of arf's earlier.
Thanks Dev that was funny.

This is ALICE after I tried to get her to tell me whether she felt that she demonstrated the limits of AI.

In terms of AI I think that until machines are capable of learning by themselves then they will never be intelligent. Plus a lot of time is spent trying to build machines that can pass the Turing test. You must have emotions and desires to be alive. It's not easy to programme these. Unless we make robots that mimic human development we will not be able to make ones that are truly intelligent. Although we could raise one as a servant child and then once developed we could copy the brain. The fact is human robots are largely unnecessary so they won't be built.

People might find this interesting:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/chineser.htm