comment: >
  
  As noted by a commentator above, the directive humans (and all life) has evolved under is to "pass on your genes to the next generation"
context: /u/to_yeet_or_to_yoink (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  
  The day is fast approaching when so-called "artificial" intelligence will be indistinguishable from the "natural" intelligence of you or I  
  
  As someone who has some background in the field: Thats a pipe dream and while not utterly unfeasable, not remotely where we are now.  
  
  Don't get me wrong here - I know we aren't there yet. What we create today is, at best, on the level of toddlers.  
  
  Not even that. It would give what we have to much credit. It would imply that there is a functioning core that is already human like but just needs time to grow. Basically a "What we do now but more" situation, which is simply not the state we're at now. >
  
  How do you definitively know this is the case? One of the chief scientists of OpenAI made the claim that some large neural networks may already be slightly conscious. As far as I know, no one has recently attempted to test the intelligence of AIs with the Turing or Lovelace tests >
  
  Imagine I create a general AI with a simple command "clean the pool".
  This AI is smart enough to solve any problems that prevents them from keeping the pool clean. They can navigate obstacles, order new products when old ones run out and they will do whatever it takes to "clean the pool". They will even kill the demolition crew that came to build a new house.
  Does this single minded intelligence have rights? >
  
  I might have explained myself poorly.  
  A simple intelligence with a basic code and performing one specific function, with limited creativity in how it performs that task is about the level we are currently at, and wouldn't fall under the rights that I'm proposing.  
  But if for some reason you made that intelligence at a level where it was sapient, where it had the same level of decision making skills as you or I? Then it should have rights. >
  
  But this doesn't have basic code or limited creativity. It's a general AI capable of super human level reasoning and problem solving. It will figure out how to build a fusion generator if that helps it to clean a pool. It will solve all philosophical debates and beat you in any game or do whatever it needs to clean that pool.
  So nothing basic or limited about them. Except that they have an order that they will fulfill. Do these intelligence have rights? Because all AI we build we build to solve some problem. >
  
  Does the intelligence have the capability of deciding whether or not it wants to clean the pool?  
  
  Because all AI we build we build to solve some problem.
  
  I agree and disagree - given the capability to do so, humanity would absolutely build a human-level intelligence just to solve the question of "Can we?"  
  What's that Jurassic Park quote? "You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you never considered whether or not you should?" We as a species would do it just to prove that we could do it without considering the ramifications first. >
  
  
  given the capability to do so, humanity would absolutely build a human-level intelligence just to solve the question of "Can we?"
  
  But it's impossible to create such AI. You have to give it some directive. If nothing else then "mimic human". They will always have some order they are following. I just picked a simple example to show the flaw in this thinking.
  Level of intelligence or problem solving doesn't mean that person have autonomy or rights. We can have intelligence that far exceeds human level but that can still just use that to "clean the pool". >
  
  It's impossible right now but who is to say that it will be impossible forever? Granted, it could be 2875 AD before we are at that point but if there's even a possibility of it, we should be prepared. >
  
  Imagine engineers in a room building this general AI.
  "Should we build a general AI"
  "Thats a great idea"
  "Let's create it so that it can solve any problem"
  "Amazing".
  Well now you just build a machine with directive "solve any problem". You cannot ever create anything without a purpose. There will always be some order that machine follows. Like I said, for sake of argument I picked a simple command but directive can be as abstract you want. Still there will always be an order that machine follows.
  It's fundamentally impossible to ever create AI without an order.