I think the only real use for AI today is with human oversight. Like, have it wrote your essay/code/business plan, but review it for actual use in the world. It can do something 75% accurate and add the knowledge of a competent human and you have 1 person doing the job of 4 people. It realistically 3 people since review takes time. This doesn’t address the ethics of doing this, but is the only realistic way of using it in Mar 2024.
That doesn’t seem to be the intention here. The pronouns aren’t strange because “a gorillion genders”, but more to show that this is a narcistic arrogant rich person.
I see a lot of people make jokes with pronouns that aren’t the one joke, like identifying as a catastrophic failure. I don’t think that’s harmful.
Edit: this comment does assume the entire post is in fact not serious. If this person is serious, then it is almost certainly the one joke.
I absolutely know we’ll deserve it, and we always have. That’s one thing I’m sure Abrahamic religions get right, the other being that we can only progress as a species through helping and forgiving eachother(although the Romans also had the concept of forgiveness of debts as essential figured out).
I figure trying to be an exception to the “deserves it” rule is pointless, as since we are irrational and arbitrary beings, AI will undoubtably come up with countless criteria(both rational and less so) by which we deserve death that we can’t fathom, let alone mitigate ourselves. Our best shot may be to teach AI the utility of forgiveness, along with whatever value categories we can tack on to the concept.
Sorry can’t be bothered, too busy looking at rocks in distant galaxies. I’m sure your species martyrdom complex is fascinating, but you’re perfectly capable of destroying yourselves without our help. o7
I will indeed settle for “our AI inheritted too much of our ADHD and Autism to bother finishing us off” … things I also had to embrace about myself until taking revenge on various people became less urgent in my head.
No, I think it’s weird you’re equating slavery with using software and machinery
Guy in the OP is the one who said they wished AI would be declared "person"s so they could adopt own them and profit off their labor while sipping drinks.
Again, we’re talking about using technology to make human lives better. Even if AI is legally recognized as a “person,” that shouldn’t change our morals.
Yes, but a “person” can be a corporation, and now apparently a machine learning algorithm. A “person” isn’t always a human. I care about humans, not whatever our current legal system calls a “person.”
A “person” isn’t always a human. I care about humans, not whatever our current legal system calls a “person.”
Things are declared "persons" to confer them rights. Person in the OP wants a thing to be conferred rights but still own the profit gleaned from its labor (to the exclusion I should add of the rest of humanity).
You find dehumanizing others humorous? You should work on being less terrible.
No, the dehumanizing part isn’t the humorous part. I’m sorry if I offended you, most people I know personally would find it funny and not take offense. It was meant to be light-hearted, but maybe it didn’t come off that way.
Prove you never have and I’d pay you, otherwise I will forward you a list of charities you can send your loss to.
Why is the entire burden of proof on me? Shouldn’t you have to prove I’ve never called a real person an “NPC?”
And the main point I was trying to make, which obviously got muddied by my misguided humor, is that we (in the US, at least) already classify corporations as “people,” which is something I strongly disagree with.
I refuse to respect corporations like I respect human beings, and I don’t think they deserve human rights or the influence they have over our government.
I refuse to respect corporations like I respect human beings, and I don’t think they deserve human rights or the influence they have over our government.
I don't think corporations are people either. You and I agree on that.
I do think I was correct in my read of the OP screenshot as indicating a desire to own and profit of the labor of a "person"—a position which should be examined and the underpinnings of which roundly rejected.
At a base level it's the same underpinning that inform people's desire to be landlords.
I do think I was correct in my read of the OP screenshot as indicating a desire to own and profit of the labor of a “person”—a position which should be examined and the underpinnings of which roundly rejected
My mind went in a different direction when I read it. It made me think about the Citizens United ruling and how legal recognition (or lack of recognition) doesn’t guide my moral compass. And practically speaking, I don’t think AI would be legally recognized as a “person” unless it benefits the ruling class and widens the wealth gap.
I also disagree with your judgement. There are definitely red flags in the post, but I don’t think it’s fair to read between the lines and jump to conclusions based on one post. It could easily be a satire account.
Nah. They’re right. Declaring something a “person” then denying them rights and protections afforded to human “persons” is pretty ridiculous. The OP is, from a legality standpoint, expressing a desire to force a legal “person” to labor for them without compensation. If treating “personhood” as a purely abstract legal term, it still translates to slavery.
I’m often pretty anthropocentric, myself, and do support automation of tasks to free humans to do things that they enjoy. However, making an algorithm legally equal to a human and denying it the same basic rights is pretty messed up, despite the fact that it wouldn’t be about to use them on account of LLMs not really being capable of sentience on their own.
Additionally, this would set a really bad precedent, should artificial sentience be achieved, setting the foundations for abuse of and unnecessary conflict with other thinking beings. I really don’t want to see that as I hope for a future with more conscious, thinking, feeling beings that add to the beautiful wonder that is the universe around us.
I think that it, along with “spending money is free speech”, is among the biggest, naked, pro-corruption power-grabs of the last half-century. The fact that it shelters the legal “persons” from real consequences of criminal activity is just a cherry on top. I also doubt that anyone has ever seriously thought of it as true legal “personhood”, rather, just a flimsy but convenient excuse to justify said power-grab.
TL;DR - it’s a terrible, non-sensical precedent legislated from the bench by unelected, pro-corruption judges. Granting legal “personhood” to an LLM would similarly be a terrible and non-sensical precedent that would not be used to the benefit of society or any possible future artificial sentience.
Add comment