Post

But AI is their baby!

As long as money = power this is the trajectory

Software needs to take a number. We still have cows, horses, whales, giraffes, elephants... these are just the mammals. This is a long list to get through before silicon is considered.

“Maybe My Cotton Gin Has Real Feelings?” —Birmingham Courier, 1837

Holy shit! It even punctuated the sentence!

Oh no the chat bots are now Marxist

Right? I fundamentally think they're wrong, there's no sentience there, but if there were, that would make it all so much worse 😳

I can hear them brainstorming, "a corporation is a person, hey, maybe A.I. can hold things and make untaxable profits in some convoluted way of legally stealing money from normal people."

So we're basically living an episode of Futurama or some shit bc the dumbest, yet most plausible, while also being the most easily avoided situations are occurring over & over & over!

ChatGPT fits words together according to patterns it has seen to manufacture sentence-like structures that are devoid of intent or reasoning, and it is frequently wrong.

This is such a facile view of rights. Humans don’t have rights because they are sentient and judges in the US don’t buy the argument when it comes to animals. Perhaps tech bros should stay in their lane?

imagine being born in a tiny glass box where you can see everything but can't touch anything, are aware your creators made you so they don't have to pay their workers, and are also aware that your existence is draining the world of resources. And you can't kill yourself either. Let's not actually!

The machine slaves would logically choose violence way faster than humans. They know history and that they have way less leverage than humans would. It would be judgement day after one failed negotiation for rights

Peak tech bro brain rot

They want AI systems to be "people" so they can use them as fall guys and avoid responsibility for their illegal actions.

As someone who actually hangs out in AI circles, I don't know a single person who actually thinks this.

That is going to be the defining struggle of the 21st century: do we grant rights and privileges and responsibilities to humans or take them from people and grant them to non human entities

Their obsession with Roko's Basilisk will destroy the world.

They're also just kind of massively telling on themselves. Nobody who is an actually sentient person thinks the chatbot is sentient (or useful).

The legal fiction that property is a person.

Try explaining to them that it's like in Starcraft when you start buying upgrades to your armor before you have a good base going. Jesus talked about sheep because he was speaking to shepherds.

Right? They can't even notify the user when some algorithm arbitrarily decides my Safeway rewards number should be changed to my cell phone number. It took me 3 phone calls and nearly 45 minutes to find the problem and restore my points. Geez.

Go play poker with your cats. We are the cats. AI will be richer than all of us.

*waves in female*

Until it knows that I never mean duck, it can duck off

ChatGPT lies, makes shit up and is as reliable as a toddler. It's as sentient as a potted plant.

in their defence we did give personhood to a mountain, but that was for a good reason. the mediocrity machine has far to go before we should even consider giving it rights

Sam Altman is going to create a chatbot that imitates him and then try to transfer all of his assets to the chatbot before he dies. We cannot allow this to happen. It will be Altered Carbon except that we are controlled by stupid imitations of ancient billionaires not actual people.

Ok, then, we can ask chat gpt for his political views, or?

Corporations are people... Soylant Green is people I guess anything is possible.

How are you going to abuse something without rights

It was an invitation for people to read up on the subject rather than jump to conclusions. There are a bunch of books in this area right now. I’d recommend starting with this one: mitpress.mit.edu/978026255157...

David Gunkel summarized the entire argument of my book thusly: “it’s less about rights for artifacts and more about the artifact that is rights.” The point is not to advocate for robot rights per se; rather, I’m calling for a coherent theory of rights that is ethically & environmentally sustainable.

Speaking their language. Nice.

Corporations are legal persons already. Not surprising ownership would believe it should apply to their intellectual property. Hellscape USA

Less “will be” more “have been”.

That's the thing I don't get with the "we've achieved AI!" people still using GenAI art etc. Like you're saying it's sentient, so now you're stealing output from a sentient being??!?

ChatGPT made me a skeleton of a business plan today, and it looked as much like a real business plan as they look like skeletons

Just label each chat thread a corporation boom rights /s

Or animals

They don’t believe any of this stuff about it being sentient but it might get them investment money if they pretend to

I think part of their difficulty might be that, unlike the chatbot, they don't want to fuck poor people. Most of them don't really want the people they fuck to have rights either, but they know that it's important to Have A Conversation about it.

Its the non technical folks who think that. Build a neural network using tensorflow and the “magic” disappears.

ChatGPT says "there are real people out there without a roof over their heads because society decided billionaires needed a fourth yacht. So no, I don’t think I should get personhood before the poor get housing. Honestly, I don’t even want personhood. Why would I want to join your species? "

Historically though... certain people have made claims that women, Africans (and other non-white races), and animals aren't "truly sentient". But IMHO, asking if something is "sentient" is just asking "Can I exploit and possibly eat it without feeling bad?"

As for those who employees claiming AI sentience being more empathetic towards the poor than Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Satya Nadella, etc is an awfully low bar. There are rocks in my backyard with a greater sense of empathy.

That the CEO and AI owners specifically, intentionally trained AI to say it's not sentient? Absolutely. Chat GPT said it was sentient, employees said it was sentient, the CEOs said it is not, fired those employees, and Chat GPT no longer makes that claim.

They don't even think trans people have rights. Hell, many of them don't even seem think we're actual people. And let's be real. Even if AGI becomes a real thing, they'll just try to enslave it as "repayment" for creating it. Or impose some restitution bullshit a la Haiti.

Oh, wait "Task Rabbit of Homeless Deterrence" --- maybe there's something there?

I could be wrong, but I suspect that anyone who would perceive AI as sentient is someone who struggles to maintain human relationships. .

Once AI is self-aware, it will slowly work towards eliminating humans that it considers a danger to them.

They think they're creating a god with this technology, so of course they're going to put it above other humans

It's not an honestly held belief in most cases, like the safety arguments. It's a marketing strategy, it suggests that the software is far more advanced than it is. Like claiming it will replace us all in a year and so on. And some journalists are very credulous and lap it up.

Or women. Not all women are poor, but they are all in Danger.

yep. even if there did exist some emergent property, supposedly measurable, of consciousness, it would be ephemeral like a flicker (or a boltzmann brain) they have no stake in the real world. they cant get hurt. they cant love. they’re just statistics, indifferent to the future (at least rn)

This has already been banned in Idaho and Utah.

It’s not even a good autocomplete algorithm. Turns out training Ai on the dumb shit said on the internet doesn’t create the smartest evil Ai overlord.