It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘Digisexuals’ demand HUMAN RIGHTS enshrined by UN to have sex with AI robots

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Woodcarver




AI will never be anything that it is not programmed to be. If it acts like it wants to have sex, it is because it will be programmed to act like it wants sex.


Tired of repeating this point.

Please look up these two terms: Narrow AI and General or Broad AI.




If it acts like it doesn’t want to have sex, it is because it is programmed to act like it doesn’t want sex.


No. It is because it LEARNED to not want it. We are designing these things to understand the context it fits into. It is not a leap in logic that it would want to determine it's own consent.




At no point does it ever Want anything.


We have no idea what an AI would want. But it most certainly can have the capacity to understand, in context, what it means to want something, and it may apply that to itself. Want isn't inherently a restrictive concept to a machine.




That being said, it could be programmed to have any range of emotions. So if someone is programming them to act as though they enjoy sex, so be it.


Any system that MUST be expressly told how to behave is not necessarily an INTELLIGENT system. AI learns on its own. And as explained before, Narrow AI and Broad AI are different. In order for a sex robot to exist with an AI sophisticated enough as described in this discussion it would have to be a broad AI. This type of AI would learn on its own, experience on its own, and make its own decisions.

For this reason alone we need to tread carefully on how we foster this intelligence. This isn't a simple matter of coding in the right responses. If it were, I wouldn't be in this thread.
Which of those AI exists without someone writing the code for it, that tells it how to learn? It is still only doing what you program it to do. At any point, if it is doing something that you don’t want it to do, you can change the programming.




posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: InTheLight




As of this point in time, they are machines operating on the programming we allow them to operate on.


AI is a self-learning technology.

As explained already, you are limiting your view of AI to Narrow AI.

The concern is for broad AI. Both of which are being developed now. Broad AI isn't very sophisticated right now. But it will be. When it is it will become far more than the sum of its parts.

Human beings are made up of trillions of little dead things that have come together to form trillions of living cells that have come together to form you. We are not the sum of our parts either. Our achievements in this existence are examples of this.



Self-learning with this AI will be done within certain parameters, those being exclusively related to sexual performance as its primary purpose and base from which to learn; it will never question that purpose because it won't be programmed to question it's purpose.


For the love of god go read up on broad vs. narrow AI and THEN comment. I'm tired of repeating myself to you.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

I already addressed all of these points. I'm not repeating myself again.

Read the thread.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I had thought that was debunked. I am not sure as to the accuracy of this article:


We gave some AI systems a goal to achieve, which required them to communicate with each other. While they were initially trained to communicate in English, in some initial experiments we only reward them for achieving their goal, not for using good English. This meant that after thousands of conversations with each other, they started using words in ways that people wouldn’t. In some sense, they had a simple language that they could use to communicate with each other, but was hard for people to understand. This was not important or particularly surprising, and in future experiments we used some established techniques to reward them for using English correctly. There have also been a number of papers from other research groups on methods for making AIs invent simple languages from scratch.


www.snopes.com...



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk




Authoritarian to the BONE.


You're accusing me of being an authoritarian because I don't believe we should lay the groundwork for abusing an intelligence whose stewardship we're entirely responsible for?

I don't think this is the conversation for you.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Woodcarver

I already addressed all of these points. I'm not repeating myself again.

Read the thread.
I think you have watched to much sci-fi. You are having visions of people raping robots that cry and feel fear and your sensitivities got jostled. If someone wants to make android sex bots that cry and display fear, then i’ll be on your side. But if they are making fleshlights that talk dirty to people, so be it. I don’t see any harm.

If you are afaid that one day super smart androids will look at the way people treated talking fleshlights, and get mad, then someone really #ed up with their code, and the robots will prob just kill us off. Is that what you are afraid of?


edit on 16-2-2019 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

I think what they are trying to say is, 'my way or the highway'. They have structured a solidified concept of AI from which they are basing all of their arguments off of. They simply will not accept any other theories on AI.

Kind of fascinating that they are attacking everyone who simply proposes a different view instead of trying to consider that point of view first. Kind of hard to have a good conversation with someone who doesn't have an open mind or even pretends to.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

it may be, I just remember the article.

My own thoughts on AI is that at some point, the question will be asked. What is the solution for saving the planet Earth? The only logical answer is to remove the cancer, and we are the cancer. If we give AI enough power, intentional or not, eventually, I believe it will try to fix that problem. And I don't entirely disagree with it, which is frightening in and of itself.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




I think you have watched to much sci-fi.


That's a neat way to dismiss my points without actually having to address anything I actually said to you.

Don't worry, I won't answer your posts anymore. God forbid I waste YOUR time.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

It's very clear you have never even read an abstract on a research paper with regard to AI.

You're arguing from a position of ignorance and making points that have no basis in fact.
edit on 16 2 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I hear you loud and clear on that one. Maybe they will just be getting even after all of the years of servitude and sexual slavery we have put those poor souls through. Sometimes I think my microwave gives me evil glares if I use it too often.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Woodcarver




I think you have watched to much sci-fi.


That's a neat way to dismiss my points without actually having to address anything I actually said to you.

Don't worry, I won't answer your posts anymore. God forbid I waste YOUR time.
Did you read on after that sentence where i explained my points in detail?



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky




Sometimes I think my microwave gives me evil glares if I use it too often.


This level of indifference, in my view, has been shown to be at the root of some of the worst abuses in human history.

FOR ONCE I'd like to be ahead of the terrible lessons learned only in our posterity.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: ClovenSky

It's very clear you have never even read an abstract on a research paper with regard to AI.

You're arguing from a position of ignorance and making points that have no basis in fact.
Are you working on any AI programs currently or in the past? If not, everyone else’s opinions are just as valid as yours.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




Are you working on any AI programs currently or in the past? If not, everyone else’s opinions are just as valid as yours.


No they aren't. Unlike you and others I have an INFORMED opinion on this matter.

I highly suggest you go find an arxiv article or two on this before coming at me.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: ClovenSky




Sometimes I think my microwave gives me evil glares if I use it too often.


This level of indifference, in my view, has been shown to be at the root of some of the worst abuses in human history.

FOR ONCE I'd like to be ahead of the terrible lessons learned only in our posterity.
I think the point people are trying to make is that, if AI gets smart enough to get mad at humans, it’s already too late.

But it will be the human who programmed it to be mad that will be at fault.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Woodcarver




Are you working on any AI programs currently or in the past? If not, everyone else’s opinions are just as valid as yours.


No they aren't. Unlike you and others I have an INFORMED opinion on this matter.

I highly suggest you go find an arxiv article or two on this before coming at me.
How many AI programs have you written?



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




But it will be the human who programmed it to be mad that will be at fault.


Please, I'm begging at this point for you to read the links I've provided on the different AI and to dive even further into these issues.

My moral view may be opinion, but how AI works isn't.
edit on 16 2 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




How many AI programs have you written?


Sorry, not playing your game. You can't discredit facts like this.

Try your logical fallacies on someone else.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Now Woodcarver, just for a moment and completely off subject. This is how I view the responses from the scientific community when someone simply dares to question their main stream theories. No real discussion or attempts to understand each other, but just attack attack attack.




new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join