Robots

[Philosophy Now]

Grant Bartley looks behind the images of the film Robots to find three perspectives on artistic greatness.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/69/Robots

[Walker]

The Turing test for great art is if always looks fresh and sounds fresh no matter when it was made, or how many times you’ve seen it. Reactions to the freshness may keep that art down, e.g., posthumous Emily Dickinson.

Re: The movie
Robot rights will open a whole new branch of tort for all those law school grads to settle grievances by siphoning off hard-earned bucks from society’s sources of wealth.

The reasoning will be: experts say the robots are sentient. They certainly appear to be sentient. Who are you with your dubious philosophical proofs, to say they are not?

[attofishpi]

The Turing test for great art is if always looks fresh and sounds fresh no matter when it was made, or how many times you’ve seen it. Reactions to the freshness may keep that art down, e.g., posthumous Emily Dickinson.

Re: The movie
Robot rights will open a whole new branch of tort for all those law school grads to settle grievances by siphoning off hard-earned bucks from society’s sources of wealth.

The reasoning will be: experts say the robots are sentient. They certainly appear to be sentient. Who are you with your dubious philosophical proofs, to say they are not?

A machine could only be considered sentient if it can experience senses such as pain. A machine will never experience emotion\pain. Oh yes, a robot is a machine.

[Walker]

The legally conferred definition of sentience upon clever machines will likely happen in your lifetime.

Just as you cannot know for sure what another human is thinking, you cannot know for sure what a machine is thinking.

At best you can monitor physiological responses to known stimuli in a human and extrapolate meaning from that such as the content of thoughts. These physiological responses can be simulated in a machine with enough computing power. Also, if the machine is a tad off then who's to say. People see what they want to see and there are plenty of expressionless humans walking around to broaden the parameters of subjectivity.

The day may come when humans must prove they are not robots.

In your logic, you neglect the power behind the teat of tort to shape reality, minds, perception, and understanding.

Just look at how popular victimology is these days, e.g., Jussie with a u.
Machines will also be victims.
It's what humanizes them.

[attofishpi]

The legally conferred definition of sentience upon clever machines will likely happen in your lifetime.

Just as you cannot know for sure what another human is thinking, you cannot know for sure what a machine is thinking.

At best you can monitor physiological responses to known stimuli in a human and extrapolate meaning from that such as the content of thoughts. These physiological responses can be simulated in a machine with enough computing power.

I don't think you understand the difference between what I call 'cold logic' and consciousness. Cold logic is what a machine is, just a bunch of on\off switches. Speed it up all you like, it ain't gonna have emotion, it ain't gonna experience the sense of 'touch'..
And as you stated - it SIMULATES what it is to have physiological responses...they ain't gonna cut the mustard for intelligent folk like myself, if the damn thing starts demanding anything by way of 'robot rights'.

Now, if it interfaced to a biological system where it feasibly could have 'consciousness', then sure - let's start considering to legislate for its rights.
A perfect example - the TV show Westworld, if you haven't seen it DO. These 'robots' are interfaced to biological matter, such that they experience pain, and yes have emotions - ergo consciousness.

Also, if the machine is a tad off then who's to say.

Me. Plug the fucker back in then.

People see what they want to see and there are plenty of expressionless humans walking around to broaden the parameters of subjectivity.

Walker, are you one of them?

The day may come when humans must prove they are not robots.

Only in the USA.

In your logic, you neglect the power behind the teat of tort to shape reality, minds, perception, and understanding.

I'm 99% certain I understand such things a lot better than you.

Just look at how popular victimology is these days, e.g., Jussie with a u.
Machines will also be victims.
It's what humanizes them.

Duh, get a grip of your primemover mate, poor thing got carved up by a mini.

[Walker]

Quite entertaining! Good chuckles.

Sure, I think biologicals will be involved to further the insertion of robots into daily life. A layer of skin and blood to pass casual blood tests, DNA tests, and so on. The robot will likely need some sort of organic host to pass itself off in society. How many people do you ask for blood in casual conversation? Not many.

And just wait until the emotional attachments start. Oh boy.

People will be marrying their robots.
People will be leaving their fortunes to robots, because only the robot understood them.
Instead of the Helmsley Maltese, we will see the Bachelor’s Robot.

To see the precedent, look at it this way:

To legal society: A hundred years ago, homosexuality was a mental illness. Something bad.
To legal society: Today, it’s something else. Something good.

Same thing could happen to robots, with the classification of sentient.
Folks change the meaning words all the time, don’t you know.

[attofishpi]

Quite entertaining! Good chuckles.

Ah, good, hopefully they'll continue.

Sure, I think biologicals will be involved to further the insertion of robots into daily life. A layer of skin and blood to pass casual blood tests, DNA tests, and so on. The robot will likely need some sort of organic host to pass itself off in society. How many people do you ask for blood in casual conversation? Not many.

I hope things by way of robots are limited before that becomes a problem. It's one thing to carry a body full of human DNA, and another to be considered consciously aware.
Anyway, I don't think a robot would be carrying live human DNA unless it was consciously aware.

And just wait until the emotional attachments start. Oh boy.

People will be marrying their robots.
People will be leaving their fortunes to robots, because only the robot understood them.

Have you seen the film 'HER'? ...more about AI but interesting how a person can fall and be a fool for such an entity.

To see the precedent, look at it this way:

To legal society: A hundred years ago, homosexuality was a mental illness. Something bad.
To legal society: Today, it’s something else. Something good.

If all humans were homosexual, then there would be very few humans if any, maybe that would be good, maybe that is an illness. I'm not sure homosexuality is good, i've known a lot of them, I voted to allow them to marry. But pretty much because I couldn't be bothered with their shit being on the news all the time with their rainbows and crap.
I would be interested eventually in the stats as to whether they stick to their vows more that heterosexuals...I very much doubt it.

Same thing could happen to robots, with the classification of sentient.
Folks change the meaning words all the time, don’t you know.

If sentience ends up being defined as the ability to simulate physiological responses then, and again...only in the USA.

Personally, I think we need to legislate right now, that these machines are not permitted among us - especially where law and order are concerned.

[Impenitent]

a robot that transcends its program to utilize free will is no longer a robot...

-Imp

[Walker]

a robot that transcends its program to utilize free will is no longer a robot...

-Imp

If the program is self-learning, then such a transcendent machine would stop learning at some point, likely when it discovers how much knowledge is enough.

https://bgr.com/2019/01/31/self-learnin ... i-machine/

Re: link.
Which is sentient: a robot that can learn what it is, or a human who won’t?

[attofishpi]

a robot that transcends its program to utilize free will is no longer a robot...

-Imp

Nice.

A robot will never have free will any more than its human creator.

APunk.

[Walker]

Human: Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?

Robot: Can you?

[Walker]

Free will means you are unencumbered to do what must be done.
At every moment, that condition exists for you to perceive.
You ultimately have the say of what must be done, every moment.
The proof that something had to be done, is that you did it.
Nothing is too insignificant to notice.
Not even a twitch.

How do you know what must be done?
You always know, by your action.

[commonsense]

The day may come when humans must prove they are not robots.

Only in the USA.

Already, when creating an account on the Internet, I am sometimes asked to prove that I am not a machine or robot by inputting normal numbers and letters shown in unconventional fonts.

I live in the States. Does that prove your xenocentric point?

[attofishpi]

The day may come when humans must prove they are not robots.

Only in the USA.

Already, when creating an account on the Internet, I am sometimes asked to prove that I am not a machine or robot by inputting normal numbers and letters shown in unconventional fonts.

Good point.

I live in the States. Does that prove your xenocentric point?

Nothing xenocentric about it - nice place to visit tho, just recommend wearing a bulletproof vest while visiting relatives at school.

[commonsense]

Only in the USA.

I live in the States. Does that prove your xenocentric point?

Nothing xenocentric about it - nice place to visit tho, just recommend wearing a bulletproof vest while visiting relatives at school.

Sad, but absolutely true.