[deleted]

We know the CO2 concentration on earth for the last several million years. I hope mods eventually delete this post for being ludicrous.

[removed]

"I got my degree at YouTube university so I know more than the entirety of the world's thousands of full time climate researchers and models. Also lemme tell you about this one weird trick..."

Just downvote whatever nonsense this is into oblivion.

[deleted]

[removed]

There's no way to realistically control it.

Raw AI output could be filtered, but what happens when humans start editing it?

[removed]

Do you think humans have only been around for 200 thousand years and the earth for 400 million? Or you know, read any actual facts?

Animals are not constructed by humans.

You would never hear someone say that animals don’t have rights like my pickup doesn’t have rights.

These models aren't doing anything different than what humans do as we grow and learn over time. Everything we think, say, or write is constructed in the same way. All of the content we've encountered through our lives create concepts that we use to derive our own thoughts and shape our thinking. The reason we don't up quoting lines or repeating the same phrases is due to the amount of material in our training corpus, which is why these models are making such a splash right now. It's the first time we've seen a large enough training set that the inferred output isn't just regurgitated lines and phrases, it's genuinely new content based on everything it was taught. That's not plagiarism.

[deleted]

What state is this -- there is not an active single payer Healthcare sate in the USA as far as I know. Vermont passed a very neutered version of one in 2011 but it was disabled in 2014 because there was not enough power at the state level to force the cost savings and the cost became untenable.

Maybe by including the rights of machines and animals and anything else that exhibits persistent consciousness we may find that all rights, including human, become more self evident?

So what, we give Microsoft Word human rights on the chance it becomes self aware?

Trust me, researchers will be well aware if their tech gains self awareness, because that's basically the dream of every AI researcher. They will parade that news in the street's the moment they achieve that goal.

I think you are misunderstanding the arguments making or I've failed to adequately to articulate them if this is your response.

​

>or have the ability to feel (don’t answer to this with the typical argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy).

We are literally discussing how we lack the understanding to determine whether or not something has consciousness, can feel or have free thought and your rebuttal is "they can't feel". This feels exactly like the sort of thing that probably happens every time we have marginalized any entity. Imagine trying to have a discussion with someone about whether or not a slave is human or sub-human and they think it's a valid response to simply say "well they are not human so...". That's literally what the debate is about!

What is this called? "Begging the question" I believe. We argue whether or not they have free will or can feel and you try to provide the evidence that "they just don't okay!"

​

>Faulty analogy fallacy. Robots aren’t a race, nor a discriminated sex. They aren’t a subgroup of humans either. Not even a subgroup of animals.

There is where I think you are missing the point of the argument entirely. I'm fully aware of the facts you just stated, but it does nothing to rebut my claim and if anything, I think bolsters my argument even more.

To state more clearly what I was arguing

There was a point in our history where we viewed, actual, literal humans as a "sub race" and treated them as though they were property. You hear that now and think "thats insane, of course they should be treated the same as people!"

Then we did that to women (and still continue to do so in many places). They are viewed as less than their male counter parts, when in fact they should be given just as many rights.

Doctors used to operate on babies without providing a means to help deal with pain, because they assumed children were incapable of processing pain like adults. Despite them literally being humans and having brains, they assumed you could physically cause harm and suffering and it was no big deal.

So my point: Humans have notoriously and consistently, attempted to classify things with consciousness, that do feel, in a way that allows other humans to disregard that fact and treat them more poorly than we would treat those that we do acknowledge have consciousness. The mere fact that we have done this with our own species, should make us more acutely aware of our bias towards rejecting equal rights to entities that are deserving of them.

​

>You are trying to give rights and moral consideration to a calculator.

This is absolutely fallacious and you are misconstruing my argument. I specifically mention traditional programs that execute functions as being separate from this view and yet you internally made this claim. Here is my bit (the calculator you claim I'm trying to give rights to):

>Most people hear "programming" and think of it in terms of a very traditional sense. A programmer goes in and writes every line of programming, that a program looks at and executers.

While this is still the case for many (probably most) forms of programming, it is not the case for machine learning.

​

>And if I see a calculator and a kitten about to be crashed by a car I’d save the kitten.

And as you should. Giving rights doesn't mean the rights necessarily need to be equal. If I saw a child or a dog about to get run over, I would 100% save the child. Does that mean the dog is not entitled to rights, simply because those rights are not equal to that of a human child? Absolutely not.

What if I saw a human adult or a child tied up on a train tracks and could only save one? Of course I'm saving the child, but obviously the human adult should still have the necessary rights afforded to it.

​

No offense, but with your use of fallacies, I assume you know something about debates, however the content of your response felt more like an attempt at a Gish Gallop than a serious reply.

There're already ways to modify our brains. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Meditation. Visualization techniques. Exercise. Learning new languages, music, trying new things, etc.

But we keep watching streaming services and logging 8hrs of screen time a day. Not to mention video games...

Should we wait until a time when a conscious entity has existed with no regard or protection, and likely suffered at the hands of others, with no recourse or accountability, before we address the collective rights society can afford?

How many times are we going to have to learn that lesson before it sticks?

What absolute bullshit. We already have controls on what we discuss - terrorism, paedophilia, etc. It's not ideological to remove those discussions- It's civilisation. The problem with unfiltered social media is it leads to the congregation of idiots and evil.

Zuckerberg keeps calling it the town hall, but towns have idiots and people who are very sick in the head and they now congregate.

Previously they were ostracised and outsiders in their community but now thanks to the internet the one moron in each town who thought the world was flat now congregates with the one village idiot from the other million towns across the world making their numbers promotable by the stupid algorithms behind social media. Net result we have a rise in Flat Earth theory. Bravo for our civilisation.

I'm all for the free discourse of ideas that advance the human civilisation, but Joe and Bob down on the corner sharing their love of snuff porn or sharing photos of little kids should be excised from our society. Otherwise, we are bound for idiocracy.

If corporations can have human rights, so will the AI produced by these corporations.

Capitalist fantasy meets science fantasy.

The curation (censorship) of user content to push the authoritative sources of information to top and create context rather than controlling it and surveillance states on a massive scale from an autonomous artificial intelligence to allow humans to live in a state of blissful ignorance? So the plot of Metal Gear Solid 2 coming true?

>moving is pretty easy in the US

except for the most vulnerable who could most benefit from moving.

[removed]

Not really. Most if not all animals aren't conscious either so whether they have rights or not is pretty relevant.