Do we want sentient machines?

[mathew101281]

It seems to be the goal of a lot of futurists. The whole point of technology has always been to extend human capabilities. Sentient machines in someways are a continuation of that and in other ways are a complete divergence. With any form of tech there is the hopeful side (how I dream it’s going to be used) and how it’s actually used(the practical use).

[MyriVerse]

The only downside, imo, is that it'll just give fleshies more excuse to get dumber. We don't need that.

But I even think SkyNet was the good guy.

[babyblob]

I dont want Sentient machine. I dont need my fridge judging my as I got back for my fourth bowl of ice cream at 3 am.

[DrNewGod]

No. We do not. We can't even trust sentient humans. Let alone entities that alien to us.

[Scott Taylor]

Its an impossibility, first of all. Sentience requires more than 0s and 1s and transistors, which is the absolute pinnacle of current computing achievement. We mimic intelligence by just having lots and lots and lots of transistors and lots of code. But computers are all objective when it comes right down to it. This is why Skynet's robots were such intolerable assholes.

Pipe dream. Should we try to create it? No, its a fools errand that will never happen. We should just stick to what we know and embrace it. Declare things sentient or having AI, if you must, but its all a lie.

[norj]

No. We do not. We can't even trust sentient humans. Let alone entities that alien to us.

If they are programmed by us how can they be considered alien?

[GOLGO 13]

When the artificial wombs go online & the fembots reach Major Kusinagi levels of sophistication, women wont be needed anymore.

[DrNewGod]

If they are programmed by us how can they be considered alien?

If the programming become sophisticated enough that their cognitive processes go beyond their initial programming, they're going to get pretty weird. Look to Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, and imagine if Mike hadn't been quite so curious about humans.

[MyriVerse]

If they are programmed by us how can they be considered alien?

What happens when they start reproramming themselves?

But in all honesty, I don't think we should have anything to fear of AI. Everything there is to fear of humans and animals is because we are so alike.

[DanMad1977]

What happens when they start reproramming themselves?

But in all honesty, I don't think we should have anything to fear of AI. Everything there is to fear of humans and animals is because we are so alike.

I hate it when a notebook or my iPhone or whatever is telling me what to do in order to work, or anything else. So, I don't want any AI or robots running around.

[Tien Long]

An intriguing idea and one which I've been playing with for a long time. Quite honestly, I think that some kind of AI/sentient machine will appear in the future. I may be reaching here, but one could argue that there is a level of sentience already with some machines. The video games that you play that adapt to your play style, could that be seen as sentience? Intelligence? (Just speculating here. I'm definitely not an expert in these things.)

If we get thinking machines, then humans will face the big issue of robot civil rights. Indeed, it's that classic sci-fi theme of robot ethics that's been played out dozens of times in movies and TV shows. The most prominent that comes to mind is Star Trek: TNG during Capt. Picard's arguing for Lit. Data's right to be seen as a sentient being:



Yes the machine has a soul of silicon, but a soul nonetheless. If a machine can think and feel for itself, does that mean it has a right to life and liberty? If so, when does sentience begin? Back with the video games I was talking about? If that's the case, I can see how our descendants will look at us and find us pretty discriminatory. In media, robots have been used as a pretty safe replacement for canon fodder. In the cartoons, it would be gruesome if the heroes slaughter a bunch of human bad guys. But robot henchmen? Yeah, the good guys hack and slash them to bits. The people of the future might look back on us and say we're awful, unenlightened human beings, much in the same way as today we look at people from the past and find them to be racist or homophobic. (Hope that the people of the future contextualize us as we should contextualize the people of the past. But that's a debate for another time).

So yeah, through all of the ranting, I wouldn't want robots to gain sentience. For me, it would be an issue of civil rights. Still, is it an unavoidable eventuality? Maybe.

[Jim Kelly]

It doesn't matter what we want, if corporations see a benefit in making sentient machines, they will, and then they'll manipulate us into thinking this is what we want, too.

There was a local TV ad about ten or fifteen years ago that promoted a city of the future where people would have the kind of communication tools we pretty much have now. To me this vision of the future was like some apocalyptic science fiction--like something from LOGAN'S RUN--but to the advertisers this vision of a future city was clearly their idea of paradise. Of course, it was prettied up, so you didn't see the downside of that techno-babble--but that Disneyfication of reality is itself horrifying.

If corporations have an easy way to track your actions and anticipate your needs, that has value because they can drive you toward their products. So a sentient machine, that becomes like a buddy that you interact with more than your friends and family, is a valuable resource for corporations to get you to do what they want when they want. If it can think on its own, then it doesn't have to await instructions from its corporate masters--it can immediately think up how to manipulate you to satisfy its programming.

[SuperiorIronman]

You will not get a robotic apocalypse should a machine achieve a level of intelligence and or have the ability to make choices for itself. At least no more than a human being or the most intelligent mammal outside of us right now. Humans are living biological machines and while the origins of a robotic life-form is different inherently, if they are to be like us then they would treat themselves and what constitutes its life no different than us.

The fear of a robotic apocalypse stems from 1 simple fear in that Humanity is a failure and we know it, so we knowing or unknowingly engineer the perfect organism to replace us. However at the end of the day that's the same damn end game as having kids. You create and nurture the next generation hopefully to do a better job than you did. The fear of becoming obsolete is the reality but you live on through what you put into the next generation, it's all cumulative. At the end of the day if they are to the point they can integrate into Humanity, you're not going to notice. And I don't mean like they look like us, I mean that something looking like the Terminator could walk down the street delivering your news paper and it would be completely normal. We want to create and we should be willing to do right by the things we create. We get back what we put into it and if we put something good in, why should we be afraid of the next generation?

[Grapeweasel]

I'm about halfway through Person Of Interest.

No.

[Tendrin]

I mean, are they Skynet or are they the Minds from Iain Banks' Culture novels, or are they like the ones in Person of Interest? Because the answer for me is 'yes, but'. XD