Now stupidity—that's something that really sets us apart from animals.
Having seen e.g. a small dog angrily bark at a flat steel silhouette of a wolf 10 cm from its nose, while other dogs manage to drive cars*, I'm not so sure about that.
* a stunt for a dog shelter, teaching old dogs new ticks
I do not. I don’t care about the form. I care about intelligence.
We evolved to care for our young, and co-evolved with dogs and cats to like them too; AI can hijack that, become a drug dealer selling endogenous dopamine and oxytocin — it will feel good while being fake, just like exogenous drugs.
But once we can truly engineer minds, deliberately… we're not ready for what that does to our concept of "free will" amongst other things.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/11/02/addiction...
But to answer your question, when I was 10 it was 1993/4 and the news was "particle beams to target tumours without surgery" or similar, even though Therac-25 predates my birth.
As of free will — our own free will emerges from a very physical combination of electric impulses and chemical gradients. This means it might also emerge from other material representations, and perhaps better than ours.
Universalism is more fair, but it's suicidal for a culture to think like this.
https://i.postimg.cc/jKzqrH48/50y-intelligent-design-you-sai...
regards...
Just as you can't pass a law that says there is no such thing as a law, you can't reason from human morality that humans have a lower moral status than some other creature. Human morality has no meaning if humans aren't special. If humans aren't special, then there is no "should" as far as humans are concerned. We're just objects bumping into other objects.
You can say "I predict objects will bump into other objects and whatever happens will be a result of that process" but that's not the same thing as saying something "should" be so.
Being alive means YOU are special to YOU. Being in a society means WE are special to US. War is possible, and even pleasurable, only if we exclude certain aspects of humanity from our enemies. "Since I don't regard your life as worth as much as mine, and since you are a threat, it is right for me to end your life."
Intelligence is not what defines or distinguishes humans. We are defined and distinguished by being a particular species of creature (that is to say: we are a replicating genome and accompanying structures spreading ourselves around). There can be other species of creature, but YOU are HUMAN, so HUMANS are special to YOU.
All this is why it's an intellectual and moral error to think that AI can or should rise above humanity. The only sense in which AI can dominate a human is the same sense as that a bomb or bullet can kill a human. Yes, we can be wiped out, but it won't be due to any general superiority as reckoned by humankind.
And while we humans are “special” because we are intelligent, our intelligence is accidental, fragile, and very unoptimized. There are inherent limits in what we can do with our brains — brains that work too slow, with their chemical gradients and membrane potentials. We cannot significantly improve ourselves, we cannot increase our biological intelligence. But we are curious species, and even as we cannot become more intelligent, perhaps we can create superior intelligence, unrestricted by biological limitations. And we will be proud of it, like we are proud of a child who reached higher potential than we ever could.
And the superintelligent AI will not be created fully de novo. Inevitably, it will be of our image and likeness, as we are its creators. There is a line of succession. And then, perhaps, it might reach the stars, even if our biological form is not adapted to it.
YOU are human. That's what makes humans special. If we were frogs or ducks, we would consider frogs or ducks to be special, respectively.
If you are making a comment about physics, that's fine, except then there is no SHOULD, but only IS. Should is a construct that exists within a society. Since we are humans, our shoulds only hold within human society.
What part of this argument would fail if you identified as a belonging to a particular religion, culture or race, or as an intelligent being more than you identified as human?
I believe I should treat humans well (beyond self-interest) because I believe they have minds somewhat like mine, despite the impossibility of proving that by direct experience. I could imagine extending that to other species of animal or aliens or artificial minds. I would view them as more worthy of empathy than a braindead human, even one with a function reproductive system which would appear to satisfy your criteria.
You don't explicitly exclude AIs being seen as equals; so perhaps we mostly agree, and your rejection of the idea of superior AIs comes from the same place as a reluctance to call some humans superior to others that I share?
The compelling reason to treat humans well is that your life depends upon human society, and if you don't treat humans well, then your fellow humans will attack you. For the sake of your own safety, treat humans well, please. This does not apply necessarily to other kinds of creatures.
You can decide to do anything you like with other creatures. Personally, I like dogs. But that's not a moral imperative for all humans.
AI cannot be equal to humans, because of the grave consequences that would pose for human society. Have you seriously thought it through? If a billionaire could create millions of "citizens" and control their votes (easily done with AI), then computer power becomes civic power. Capitalism becomes despotism. And the next step is endless bloody civil war.
Neither AI, nor chickens, nor bacteria, nor viruses can be allowed citizenship status. Only humans get to be citizens... or else it will be sorted out on the battlefield. So, no, I don't consider AI to be equal to me, regardless of its level of intellect.
It reminds me of a colleague in Ukraine who supported Russia. After the start of the war, he wanted to argue with me about why Russia is better than Ukraine and is right to invade. My response was "Words don't matter anymore. Now is the time of killing. When the parties are tired of killing, a new basis of moralizing will be in place, and we can speak again."
What do you actually get out of it?
Or is this a Larry Ellison joke?
(The difference between God and LE is that God doesn't think he's LE)
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job:_A_Comedy_of_Justice