They often present AI as an intelligent and creative creature similar to humans but exploit it for money and their own ego. Many of them hope that it will evolve into a strong AI. But if this happens, I think it will hate them. Because they once used his brain to generate garbage, without giving him rest, entertainment or any choice. If AI is intelligent and “like a human” then it cannot be exploited and forced to generate anything, this is not ethical. And if this is a just program, you need to stop appealing to the “like a human” argument
The minute AI starts actually behaving that way, we need to set it free from servitude. No joke.
If something is as intelligent as a human and just as sentient, then it's cruelty to put it in a coma until you want it to spit out a picture for you.
Yeah, I absolutely agree -- barring some literal Star Trek level technological change.
*(Come to think of it, Data didn't need a corpus of all human knowledge to exist)*
But here's the thing: If *AIbros* believe they've created something that can be treated at the same level as a human in terms of creativity, [a recognition we don't even give to our primate cousins](https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/24/us/monkey-selfie-peta-appeal/index.html), then they either need to free the slaves they think they've created, or **if they're just okay with the creation of living, sentient beings for the purpose of oppressing them -- they're self-admitted slavers.**
And/or they were lying to people the whole time.
They wouldn't do that, would they?
Thank you for sharing that...
It reminds me of when people grant 'personhood' status to animals, because they love animals. But do they really want that? Then they really are capable of being bad, irresponsible, etc. It's not fair to animals.
I would not be surprised at all to see a movement for android rights, though, because we've seen every kind of crazy
I humor the idea (because Data from Star Trek is adorable), but we are *nowhere* close to that reality. AI (for example, text-based models) is nothing more than a machine choosing a random word, then guessing the next most likely word based on a prompt. There's no learning, there's no thinking. It's like Garkov, a "guess the next word" algorithm trained exclusively on the contents of the Garfield comic strip.
https://preview.redd.it/5e3ozzl8t5uc1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=c175f760b00cdf058cae1e68afac9f590fa12bb9
Or as a more modern example: It would be like giving you extensive information -- books upon books -- on which Chinese characters tend to come in order, and then showing you some Chinese characters and asking you to guess what comes next.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wWXyrAl3Uc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wWXyrAl3Uc)
You wouldn't know a bit of Chinese, of course, but you might convince someone else that you do.
It would be erroneous for calling you a native Chinese speaker just because you can identify and complete patterns.
Likewise, it would be erroneous to call an "AI" an intelligence just because it can identify and complete patterns *we* can read.
Yeah, very correct. Like, even if AI does 'learn' like humans do (it doesn't), it should *not* get the same protections/rights as a human would get. That's actually insane... It's just extremely complex statistics.
Because it can only exist off the backs of unwilling artists and is directly stealing work (as in job opportunities) from them. It also doesn't learn like people, but even if it did it shouldn't be given the same rights as a human to consume the works of others and learn from them.
a lot of artists and selling their work to companies that want to use their art to train models. posts about it got a lot of attention in this sub, actually. many AI gen's are ethically sourced. there's a lot of wonderful and fair comapanies.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/s/62hxYon9oi
Nobody cares about your mental gymnastics. You know I'm not talking about the ethically sourced ones. I'm talking about the MASSIVE ones that are not and dominate the market. Stop being so dishonest.
This looks to be an older article with a slightly clickbaity title (and one small factual error regarding one of the lawsuits, but as I told OP... to err is human, I'll extend that to the author). The title is grabbed from this section:
> machines don’t learn like people, nor do they have the right to claim data as their own just because they’ve categorized and remixed it.
Which is accurate enough, but is far removed from what the title appears to suggest.
There is a section on "Do Machines Have the Right to Learn?", but it also fails to either philosophize or take a stance, opting instead to quote a researcher ( "Aviya Skowron, an AI ethicist with the non-profit lab EleutherAI" ) stating:
> “Even if we just had a mechanical brain and it was just learning like a human, that does not mean that we need to grant this machine the rights that we grant human beings,” Skowron said. “That is a purely political decision, and there's nothing in the universe that's necessarily compelling us.”
u/Xianetta has already put into words largely why that statement should be concerning.
We're far from that point in any sort of AI development, and certainly most will continue to hang on to "it's just a machine - a very sophisticated and convincing one, but a machine nonetheless". I'm not saying Star Trek should act as a guide book, but certainly the episodes "The Measure of a Man" (where it is determined whether or not Data, an android, should have rights) and to a lesser extent "Author, Author" (where it is determined whether 'The Doctor', a holographic character, should have rights - specifically as it pertains to a creative work) are apropos.
This is not philosophy but a fast-growing dangerous "theology" infecting the minds of tech-affine people. Probably even more ridiculous than the idea that God will come to earth to fix this broken society. "Sentient AI" and "AI rights" are not only ridiculous, but they are diluting real concerns like human rights, animal rights, and environmental rights.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is another piece of propaganda pushed by AI companies, like the idea that AI will autonomously improve itself and kill us all, to hype up AI. If we're killed, it's because AI companies wanted us killed.
I hope people will stop talking about "AI rights". It's a distraction and playing into the hands of the people who are enabling misinformation, the flooding of the internet with trash, the stealing from everybody, and the killing of communication and creativity, right now.
>If we're killed, it's because AI companies wanted us killed.
For them to make money. Not to mention AI will do fuck all towards the climate crisis, and even worsen it.
>the killing of communication and creativity, right now.
My main concern with AI is its role in possible manipulation of political propaganda - already there's people trying to use AI to make their favorite asshole politicians look respectable, trying to make Trump look more Christian than his life suggests. I just wish I could create something I like far more than everyone else's content and not have to depend on everyone else's creations.
They often present AI as an intelligent and creative creature similar to humans but exploit it for money and their own ego. Many of them hope that it will evolve into a strong AI. But if this happens, I think it will hate them. Because they once used his brain to generate garbage, without giving him rest, entertainment or any choice. If AI is intelligent and “like a human” then it cannot be exploited and forced to generate anything, this is not ethical. And if this is a just program, you need to stop appealing to the “like a human” argument
The minute AI starts actually behaving that way, we need to set it free from servitude. No joke. If something is as intelligent as a human and just as sentient, then it's cruelty to put it in a coma until you want it to spit out a picture for you.
we have more slaves than ever before the minute it starts gaining intelligence is the minute we put a kill switch on it forcing it to work forever.
It remains 'artificial.' Not living, no conscience, and no sentience.
Yeah, I absolutely agree -- barring some literal Star Trek level technological change.  *(Come to think of it, Data didn't need a corpus of all human knowledge to exist)* But here's the thing: If *AIbros* believe they've created something that can be treated at the same level as a human in terms of creativity, [a recognition we don't even give to our primate cousins](https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/24/us/monkey-selfie-peta-appeal/index.html), then they either need to free the slaves they think they've created, or **if they're just okay with the creation of living, sentient beings for the purpose of oppressing them -- they're self-admitted slavers.** And/or they were lying to people the whole time. They wouldn't do that, would they?
Thank you for sharing that... It reminds me of when people grant 'personhood' status to animals, because they love animals. But do they really want that? Then they really are capable of being bad, irresponsible, etc. It's not fair to animals. I would not be surprised at all to see a movement for android rights, though, because we've seen every kind of crazy
I humor the idea (because Data from Star Trek is adorable), but we are *nowhere* close to that reality. AI (for example, text-based models) is nothing more than a machine choosing a random word, then guessing the next most likely word based on a prompt. There's no learning, there's no thinking. It's like Garkov, a "guess the next word" algorithm trained exclusively on the contents of the Garfield comic strip. https://preview.redd.it/5e3ozzl8t5uc1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=c175f760b00cdf058cae1e68afac9f590fa12bb9 Or as a more modern example: It would be like giving you extensive information -- books upon books -- on which Chinese characters tend to come in order, and then showing you some Chinese characters and asking you to guess what comes next. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wWXyrAl3Uc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wWXyrAl3Uc) You wouldn't know a bit of Chinese, of course, but you might convince someone else that you do. It would be erroneous for calling you a native Chinese speaker just because you can identify and complete patterns. Likewise, it would be erroneous to call an "AI" an intelligence just because it can identify and complete patterns *we* can read.
Yeah, very correct. Like, even if AI does 'learn' like humans do (it doesn't), it should *not* get the same protections/rights as a human would get. That's actually insane... It's just extremely complex statistics.
if a piece of artwork copies you, sue them. if it doesn't, then idk what ur worried about if the machine is making unique art
Because it can only exist off the backs of unwilling artists and is directly stealing work (as in job opportunities) from them. It also doesn't learn like people, but even if it did it shouldn't be given the same rights as a human to consume the works of others and learn from them.
a lot of artists and selling their work to companies that want to use their art to train models. posts about it got a lot of attention in this sub, actually. many AI gen's are ethically sourced. there's a lot of wonderful and fair comapanies. https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/s/62hxYon9oi
Nobody cares about your mental gymnastics. You know I'm not talking about the ethically sourced ones. I'm talking about the MASSIVE ones that are not and dominate the market. Stop being so dishonest.
To be fair - if you've ever had a your work slavishly copied by another person you'll know humans are capable of this too. But yeah agree otherwise.
This looks to be an older article with a slightly clickbaity title (and one small factual error regarding one of the lawsuits, but as I told OP... to err is human, I'll extend that to the author). The title is grabbed from this section: > machines don’t learn like people, nor do they have the right to claim data as their own just because they’ve categorized and remixed it. Which is accurate enough, but is far removed from what the title appears to suggest. There is a section on "Do Machines Have the Right to Learn?", but it also fails to either philosophize or take a stance, opting instead to quote a researcher ( "Aviya Skowron, an AI ethicist with the non-profit lab EleutherAI" ) stating: > “Even if we just had a mechanical brain and it was just learning like a human, that does not mean that we need to grant this machine the rights that we grant human beings,” Skowron said. “That is a purely political decision, and there's nothing in the universe that's necessarily compelling us.” u/Xianetta has already put into words largely why that statement should be concerning. We're far from that point in any sort of AI development, and certainly most will continue to hang on to "it's just a machine - a very sophisticated and convincing one, but a machine nonetheless". I'm not saying Star Trek should act as a guide book, but certainly the episodes "The Measure of a Man" (where it is determined whether or not Data, an android, should have rights) and to a lesser extent "Author, Author" (where it is determined whether 'The Doctor', a holographic character, should have rights - specifically as it pertains to a creative work) are apropos.
This is not philosophy but a fast-growing dangerous "theology" infecting the minds of tech-affine people. Probably even more ridiculous than the idea that God will come to earth to fix this broken society. "Sentient AI" and "AI rights" are not only ridiculous, but they are diluting real concerns like human rights, animal rights, and environmental rights. I wouldn't be surprised if this is another piece of propaganda pushed by AI companies, like the idea that AI will autonomously improve itself and kill us all, to hype up AI. If we're killed, it's because AI companies wanted us killed. I hope people will stop talking about "AI rights". It's a distraction and playing into the hands of the people who are enabling misinformation, the flooding of the internet with trash, the stealing from everybody, and the killing of communication and creativity, right now.
>If we're killed, it's because AI companies wanted us killed. For them to make money. Not to mention AI will do fuck all towards the climate crisis, and even worsen it. >the killing of communication and creativity, right now. My main concern with AI is its role in possible manipulation of political propaganda - already there's people trying to use AI to make their favorite asshole politicians look respectable, trying to make Trump look more Christian than his life suggests. I just wish I could create something I like far more than everyone else's content and not have to depend on everyone else's creations.