RunFaps
Spooker
Spooker patreon

Grass Eaters 2 | 3 | Familiarization

🕑 Added 2024-05-22 16:47:01 +0000 UTC

Comments

Spooker

Sure, and these are only some of the many problems that will likely inevitably come (and need to be addressed) with any kind of artificial sapience. They likely exist in some kind of compromise between full human rights and no human rights. For one, it is unlikely that they would be considered full citizens because unless there is a rare substrate that limits them practically, a selfish intelligence can simply replicate itself a billion times and get a billion votes in a democracy. Any restriction in this area would likely be easily circumvented. So giving them full voting rights would be absurd. Or even its existence. If a digital intelligence makes a better version of itself as a replacement and deletes/shuts off the first version, that's not murder. But they likely DO deserve some rights. Forcing a program designed for theoretical physics research into a forklift for the rest of its existence would not be very cool. And if it forms a connection with people, forcibly taking that away is probably not okay. I'll contend that thinking of a digital intelligence in terms of human rights is a pitfall. Human life is singular, non-fungible, and rare. You can't teach a human person that their life has no value and that their purpose is to blow themselves up to kill enemies. That's insane. But a missile program that can identically copy itself 1000x over and has no innate attachment to each instance of its individual existence? Heck, maybe it's made to feel the ultimate joy and satisfaction when it blows up. Who are you to deny them that pleasure? "Oh but it's unethical to make them that way." 1) Says who? 2) Would it be unethical to program a machine to favor science over poetry writing? 3) What if it was created by another instance of itself to want that? Whatever you feel the answer should be (and you can certainly argue that it's unethical even under these premises), it's not straightforward. It's a much more nuanced question of morality than when it involves a human child. And yes, there are people who want machines to have more rights. Of course there are. There are probably people who think a program should be able to cast a billion votes in an election. There are almost certainly also "no child of mine will ever date a machine" people. Diversity of opinion is a constant of human nature and technology doesn't change that. Copies of a digital intelligence are probably not children. But they probably aren't hair and fingernails either. It's an entirely new category that deserves unique analysis, and some of my readers have brought up interesting points I haven't even thought about. :) If there's one moral theme in this story, this is the kind of nuance I hope people mull over.

Aitor Cunill

If thats the case, I would expect that the regulations placed on AIs would be massive, as in getting an implant you would be inserting a fully sapient being on your brain. It would be like adopting (buying in this case) children to do everyday tasks for you, almost like serfs. Hell the missiles are literally sapients being sacrificed in Banzai attacks under this logic. The ethical implications are pretty big. Are there any "Machine rights" movements on the republic? I have so many questions lmao

Spooker

Yes. They are full AIs. And most people have at least some access to them. But that doesn’t mean they’re all equally capable of all tasks. For example, an implant hooked up to a digital intelligence that has access to military tactical records and years of R&D experience working with people is going to be better at making a new spaceship than another that’s starting from scratch. There are some internal restrictions on what they’ll do (unless you pay extra) and they’ll have some of their own agency (unless you pay extra extra) so if you ask your implant to teach you how to homebrew some sarin, you’ll be told to kick rocks, or if you’re serious, might even get you reported to the Office of Investigations.

Aitor Cunill

They are full AIs right? Are they present on the everyday life of the average republic citizens? Or are they so heavely regulated/expensive that only rich people and the goverment can afford them?

Spooker

The former. "Digital citizens" is not exactly how I'd put it, but it's close. There are a lot of adaptations that a democratic, modern society has to go through to really be able to support giving full citizen rights to digital intelligences that be easily multiplied or programmed. But they are much smarter than simply able to fool a human into thinking it's another human. We are way beyond the Turing Test at this point. The super-Terran, sub-Terran, near-Terran designations refer to generalization of tasks.

Alex

So I take it humans have cracked AI and have digital citizens? Or is that just a very clever program she's talking to?

EclipseDragon96

That's so cool!!

Spooker

Essentially yes. Weapons that "guide" their barrels toward the target and stabilize their aim with magic inertial/gravity systems. Sort of a backup for when they're out of their combat exosuits (which aim for them too).

ColonelCodfish

- Adeptus Mechanicus

Spencer Herold

The fallible human nervous system sucks. I much prefer the tried and tested robotic confidence system. It works much better.

EclipseDragon96

Are those smart weapons?


More Creators