Defining AI (continued) and defining the rights
It's easy to simply write up a feature list of an AI and say they get X rights for Y features. To use my last post as an example, each successive AI generation might get more rights because they are (in theory) capable of more, but also more responsibilities.
Obviously that won't because each generation may not be capable of more; just able to determine how you like your toast with more granular precision (he likes it 0.0001% darker on the butter side, but only on Sundays)
But a system like that is partway there, if is your right to have an internet connection, but do not have the capability to access the internet, whats the point? So the above needs to be used with the below.
In any case I'll stop listing features and rights and get down to the meat of it:
How do we define those rights/Who qualifies for them?
WRONG TRAIN OF THOUGHT
Who defines those rights/How do we set the qualifications for them
Short answer:
Democratically.
Long answer:
You begin with an (elected?) council of humans in Generations 00-01 (see last post if you want more info on generations) This is because any potential decision on the rights of even one AI (at least initially) will have major repercussions throughout the worlds of both human and AI. That and the niggling detail that the artificially inclined properly exist yet in a bra-burning sense.
Who are these people?
For the love of god not politicians, please, just don't go there. Aside from that i'd hope to see a mix of tech savvy philosophers. Bear in mind that is the ideal situation.
More likely your going to see major tech-developers/tech-gurus/tech-<insert relevant field here>, politicians representing the commercial sector (shudder) and/or military.
It ain't pretty but it's a start; and in the end, it is not about presenting a council without an agenda, its about presenting a council that is adaptable the the needs of the time and presents as many agendas as is feasible.
Why are they there/What are they doing?
They are there to regulate the industry to begin with, make sure that the cutting of the ribbon in front of the first true AI ain't' going to be a disaster, or if it is (and i'd put my money on it is), they cover it up. Besides, if they don't, someone else will certainly try.
Trust me, it's better for us in the long run. We want as little preconceived prejudices when the AI community as a whole starts philosophizing; Letting our fears get the best of us will set relations (and AI development as a whole) back YEARS if not damage them permanently.
Why? we oppress what we fear/hate. Can't escape from it, it's human nature at its simplest.
As someone wise once said: fear leads to hate, hate leads to violence, ??? leads to PROFIT darkside.
"...Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering..." -
Where will they be going from there?
Well... that is a bit harder to predict, but easier to be naively optimistic about. Assuming all AI past the inevitable first crisis aren't lobotomized at creation you will eventually see some philosophizing; either by learned behavior or design.
These initial philosobots may or may not have anything useful to say on, for example, a council defining the rights for artificial intelligence's but those that do will help with the initial task of defining what an AI is.
And for you sitting in your chair, even after reading my prior articles, saying "An AI is an AI, it's easy to define", I put this question to you: humans (outside of Africa) are from 5-10% neanderthal.
What is human?
And the council from there?
Just like any council it must constantly adapt, new AI's are elected to the council as old ones are shelved so to speak, definitions are redefined, humans phased out, post-humans - should they exist at all within the context of AI culture - phased in and we all go about out democratic life.
One last note, as I mentioned above, even an AI shouldn't be on term for forever, fresh ideas, oldies oldies being stuck in a rut (I know i'm stereotyping shush), young blood and all.
Or the council stagnate and fester like all councils do if left at it. After all for the most part "Governments are not voted in, they are voted out"
No comments:
Post a Comment