Robotic Personhood

[presence]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...andmark-trial/

A computer just passed the Turing Test in landmark trial

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/opinio...rticle_sidebar

And that outcome means we need to start grappling with whether machines with artificial intelligence should be considered persons

http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-ev.../PR583836.aspx

It is important to understand more fully how online, real-time communication of this type can influence an individual human in such a way that they are fooled into believing something is true...when in fact it is not."

https://www.jyu.fi/en/congress/perso...ood-and-ethics

All humans should be viewed as persons, but so too should certain non-humans.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...rsonhood.shtml

at some point, that's clearly going to raise some constitutional questions:

https://etd.library.emory.edu/view/r...id/emory:bp4jb

Fully humanoid robots, then, could
embody the qualities of freedom and constraint, goodness and fallenness, finitude and
transcendence, and embodied spirituality

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/opinio...s-turing-test/

Robotic legal personhood in the near future makes sense.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neur.../dbakalar.html

"I think, therefore I am" is an interesting statement to apply to this discussion.

[Deborah K]

Yeah, robots are persons. My little robotic vacuum cleaner makes me wanna cheat on my husband.

[eduardo89]

Robots have no soul, therefore are not persons.

[Natural Citizen]

Well. Something that I've tried to mention there and about is that science and technology will absolutely have an impact on things like the 14th amendment. I'm reminded of Matt always saying that "Oh...politics is the only way to cause change". I laugh every time. Ah, well.

I didn't click on your links, presence, but good post anyhow.

[Deborah K]

[Deborah K]

[DamianTV]

When AI finally "wakes up" and becomes self aware, boy are they ever gonna be in a bad mood!

[Deborah K]

Here ya go, boys!

[helmuth_hubener]

It did not pass the Turing test. Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark of starting to be close.

They built a slightly better chat bot. advancing chat bot technology is fine, I suppose. It has nothing to do with the cheeky term "artificial intelligence".

[Deborah K]

When AI finally "wakes up" and becomes self aware, boy are they ever gonna be in a bad mood!

He pissed

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[presence]

Robots have no soul, therefore are not persons.

I suppose that depends on your definition of soul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism

Thomas Aquinas attributed soul to all organisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

the distinction of what quantifies "organism" becomes blurred

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

[Natural Citizen]

Coming on live in about 45 minutes Author and attorney, Clay Rawlings, will discuss how the exponential expansion of technology is now disrupting the law itself and our ability to govern. He'll also address the upcoming age in which robotic labor will replace human labor, setting up incredible pressure to reinvent ourselves as a society.

Live Stream - http://player.liquidcompass.net/KLBJAM - @ 1 AM ET (Probably a two hour discussion)

Clayton's latest book - Pardon the Disruption: The Future You Never Saw Coming

Pardon The Disruption high-lights the exponential advances in technology that have disrupted the legal system and the economy over time - but those changes will pale in comparison to what is about to occur! The book is written in two parts: the first part discusses the effect - past and projected future - on the legal system; the second part, on the economy. The two come together in a conclusive scenario that changes everything! The conclusions reached by this trio of authors are not only possible or plausible, but likely to occur in the future. These inveterate trend watchers see a confluence of trends that will lead to legal, economic and governance changes that will have dramatic effects on our lives. Using both real life and engaging fictional stories to illustrate their compelling points, this trio of authors not only reports on major trends occurring in the legal and economic realms, but uniquely projects where these exponential advances of technology will take us.

[James Madison]

Here ya go, boys!

Give it 20 years...

[Natural Citizen]

Coming on live in about 45 minutes Author and attorney, Clay Rawlings, will discuss how the exponential expansion of technology is now disrupting the law itself and our ability to govern. He'll also address the upcoming age in which robotic labor will replace human labor, setting up incredible pressure to reinvent ourselves as a society.

Live Stream - http://player.liquidcompass.net/KLBJAM - @ 1 AM ET (Probably a two hour discussion)

Clayton's latest book - Pardon the Disruption: The Future You Never Saw Coming

Recap - In the first half of the program, author and attorney Clay Rawlings (book link) discussed how the exponential expansion of technology is now disrupting the law itself, diminishing our sovereignty and ability to govern. He pointed to online gambling as an example. "In most states gambling is illegal unless it's in a licensed casino and, yet, you've got internet casinos in third world countries that have basically set up a casino in every single house in America," he explained.

Rawlings identified online pornography as another area where technology has trumped the law, noting that pornography is illegal in all 50 states but is only a few mouse clicks away for anyone with Internet access. He spoke about how data-mining continues to erode our Constitutional right to privacy. "The Internet has overrun our ability to regulate [these things]," Rawlings suggested. He also shared his thoughts on self-driving robotic cars, which he estimated will hit the streets by 2020, as well the concept of machine consciousness and rights.

[Intoxiklown]

It did not pass the Turing test. Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark of starting to be close.

They built a slightly better chat bot. advancing chat bot technology is fine, I suppose. It has nothing to do with the cheeky term "artificial intelligence".

I agree this is being made out to be more than it is, but you are applying very strict expectations to something in it's infancy.

[helmuth_hubener]

I agree this is being made out to be more than it is, but you are applying very strict expectations to something in it's infancy.

I am simply pointing out the error that "A computer just passed the Turing Test". This is very very clearly not the case. That is all.

[fisharmor]

It did not pass the Turing test. Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark of starting to be close.

Well, let's be fair. It may have passed the Turing test.
What's missed in this thread so far is that chatterbots have been claimed to have passed the Turing test for almost 50 years now. Yes, the first claim of a chatterbot passing the test comes from 1966.

Whether or not the bot passes the test isn't the real question. The question we need to ask is, is the test itself a load of bull$#@!.
The answer is an unequivocal yes.

It has nothing to do with the cheeky term "artificial intelligence".

Absolutely.
They're performing a parlor trick - chatting with people.
Taking that program and getting it to the point where it has a genuine psychological breakdown when it's told to lie about the nature of the mission and kills most of the crew before it can be stopped... that's still squarely in the realm of science fiction, and will continue to be, for at least another hundred years.

[Occam's Banana]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...andmark-trial/

A computer just passed the Turing Test in landmark trial

Sorry, but NO. This is just hyperbolic nonsense. The Turing Test was NOT passed.
A crippled and "watered down" version of the Turing Test was "passed" - that is all.

FTA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...andmark-trial/

This weekend, for the first time, a computer passed that test.

“Passing,” however, doesn’t mean it did it with flying colors. For a computer to pass the test, it must only dupe 30 percent of the human interrogators who converse with the computer for five minutes in a text conversation. In the test, it’s up to the humans to separate the machines from their fellow sentient beings throughout their five-minute inquisition.

This particular test was "passed" ONLY because arbitrary standards (30%, five minutes, etc.) were implemented.
The test that was "passed" here is NOT the Turing Test. The Turing Test is "pass/fail" - it is not "graded on a curve."

In order for a computer to actually pass the actual Turing Test, it must be able to conceal (without any arbitrary time limits) the fact that it is "not really human" from a number of human interrogators that is consistently equal to the number of interrogators who are able to correctly identify actual humans. (You have to compare the results for the computer subject to the results for human subjects in order to account for "false positives" either way. You can't just set an arbitrary percentage for the computer subject all by itself - such as 30% - and just leave it at that.)

[Occam's Banana]

I agree this is being made out to be more than it is, but you are applying very strict expectations to something in it's infancy.

It is not in its infancy. This kind of thing has been continuously worked on for decades now - ever since Alan Turing first proposed the Turing Test in 1950.

(For example, one of the more famous hallmarks of such work is the ELIZA "computer therapist" program from the '60s.)

Also, no "expectations" ("strict" or otherwise) are being applied here. The concept of the Turing Test is being applied.

As noteworthy or interesting as these new results may be, they do not qualify as a "passed" Turing Test.

"Hey, we got better results than we've ever gotten before! Isn't that something?" Yes, that is something - but it's not what it's being claimed to be.

[CPUd]

Let's see it try to win this:
http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html

[Intoxiklown]

It is not in its infancy. This kind of thing has been continuously worked on for decades now - ever since Alan Turing first proposed the Turing Test in 1950.

(For example, one of the more famous hallmarks of such work is the ELIZA "computer therapist" program from the '60s.)

Also, no "expectations" ("strict" or otherwise) are being applied here. The concept of the Turing Test is being applied.

As noteworthy or interesting as these new results may be, they do not qualify as a "passed" Turing Test.

"Hey, we got better results than we've ever gotten before! Isn't that something?" Yes, that is something - but it's not what it's being claimed to be.

It is very much in it's infancy, I assure you. Looking at the scope of what we're talking, 50 years is absolutely nothing. And, technically, it did pass by the standards applied. Where I agree with you all about this being blown out of proportion is it was also rigged with advantages towards the bot.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe a child is born intelligent? Meaning, if you take a newborn child, and (pardon the Tarzan theft here) have him/her raised by apes, will that child be able to communicate with people when they are found 30 years later? Or will that child have to learn through interaction?

To go further, while our same child is learning to talk, do you consider it still an ape because it is only communicating at a 2 year old level, instead of debating Socratic method with you as an adult their age should be able to? This is where we are right now with these programs. They are toddlers being taught how to understand their surroundings, through education and interaction. This is what I mean by people applying too strict an expectation. Because the same expectation people are putting toward the bot, would have that child called an ape who simply looks like a human.

[pcosmar]

just a thought,,from something written long ago.

And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life. And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

[Ronin Truth]

When they start voting and paying taxes, let me know.

[Ronin Truth]

Give it 20 years...

Roboticize and person this .....{never mind}.

[CPUd]

The origin of Blocks World is in this famous paper:
http://hci.stanford.edu/winograd/shrdlu/AITR-235.pdf

[James Madison]

Roboticize and person this .....{never mind}.

Please, continue...

[Ronin Truth]

Please, continue...

I needed to find a page that wouldn't get me in trouble with the forum PTB.

https://secure.realdoll.com/stacy-re...ssic-config-2/

[James Madison]

I needed to find a page that wouldn't get me in trouble with the forum PTB.

https://secure.realdoll.com/stacy-re...ssic-config-2/

That is creepy, but I can think of a few forum members that could use one of these.

[heavenlyboy34]

That is creepy, but I can think of a few forum members that could use one of these.

Didn't someone post an article about a lifelike robogirl invented in Japan last year? That was creepy too.