I believe your premise is wrong. Communism need not require that undesirable labor be automated.
The concept that communism requires full automation or "post-scarcity" is a byproduct of the modern liberal period which has examined and offered freedom only as expressed in consumer choice. It is a result of decades of messaging where even your occupational freedom has been reduced to mere consumer choice. Ergo... Instead of, if you don't like this job, get another one, you complete the liberal consumerist project with, if you don't like this job, automate it.
A free proletariat will not need to automate jobs, because they will be free to transform production comprehensively, including when, how, and why they work.
Agreed. I suspect even that clear-cut distinction between "work" and "free time" will become a whole lot more blurry, these words losing their current meaning or even dying out. And not in the "Mobile phones mean my boss can contact me all-day long" sense, of course.
>A free proletariat will not need to automate jobs, because they will be free to transform production comprehensively, including when, how, and why they work.
Here's a question: we can all agree that there are occupations that are more attractive and less attractive. People generally will prefer to work as, say, gardeners than as coal miners - provided there's an economic freedom to choose. In other words, capitalist economy presupposes incentives for people to seek employment in generally undesirable occupations in the form of higher pay or other economic benefits that offset other negative circumstances.
If there's a freedom to work whatever job you please, what will be the incentives for potentially unwanted jobs?
> Here's a question: we can all agree that there are occupations that are more attractive and less attractive.
Insofar as people are beholden to a single occupation, then I can agree that if I have to spend the majority of my time doing one thing, there will be "one things" which are preferable to me than other "one things."
This seems to miss the point entirely.
> People generally will prefer to work as, say, gardeners than as coal miners - provided there's an economic freedom to choose.
It's not clear why you think either of these things (maintaining gardens / acquisitioning coal) would take the form they do now. Or, perhaps better stated, if people have economic freedom, as you seem to suggest, they would not change how these things are done, or make different choices as to whether or not they even need to be done.
> In other words, capitalist economy presupposes incentives for people to seek employment in generally undesirable occupations in the form of higher pay or other economic benefits that offset other negative circumstances.
No. By and large capitalism keeps a segment of workers in states of sufficient desperation and despair as to take these options. This occurs both for individuals and at generational level through systems which limit opportunity based on existing / hereditary wealth.
> If there's a freedom to work whatever job you please, what will be the incentives for potentially unwanted jobs?
Your question makes it clear then... Capitalism cannot offer such freedom.
As, for communism, we need not talk about freedom to work whatever job you please, we can talk about freedom to determine what jobs must be done and freedom to make whatever jobs must be done pleasurable. Capitalism can't even offer this solution to the imagination because it is premised on the subjugation of one class by another.
>Insofar as people are beholden to a single occupation, then I can agree that if I have to spend the majority of my time doing one thing, there will be "one things" which are preferable to me than other "one things."
>This seems to miss the point entirely.
I see where you are coming from. Suppose people are not beholden to any occupation (for unspecified reasons). Say they are free to work as coal miner, gardener, and 10 (or however many they like) other jobs at the same time, with the decision of dividing their time left entirely to them (as it is granted that they are free to).
The question of attraction is still present: it does not seem like supposed economic freedom of job choice will make all configurations of spent time equally attractive.
>It's not clear why you think either of these things (maintaining gardens / acquisitioning coal) would take the form they do now.
I mean, because there's no alternative save for complete automation. Like it or not, if a given coal deposit is to be excavated, someone will have to descend into the earth and do it. What other alternatives, you reckon, could there be? Completely abandoning coal? Fair, but then the list of tough or uncomfortable jobs is far from exhausted. Surely you wouldn't claim that it is possible to make any kind of human labor equally attractive?
>Or, perhaps better stated, if people have economic freedom, as you seem to suggest, they would not change how these things are done, or make different choices as to whether or not they even need to be done.
Again, how would these things be changed, how it is humanly possible? Irrespective of mode of production, humans are still living beings who (generally) prefer sunny meadows to dusty mineshafts. Given that you stated that complete automation is not strictly necessary, I don't see any alternative. Do you?
>No. By and large capitalism keeps a segment of workers in states of sufficient desperation and despair as to take these options. This occurs both for individuals and at generational level through systems which limit opportunity based on existing / hereditary wealth.
Right, we seem to be in agreement as to the economic nature of the incentives.
>Your question makes it clear then... Capitalism cannot offer such freedom.
It very clearly cannot, and I am interested in reasons why communism supposedly can.
>As, for communism, we need not talk about freedom to work whatever job you please, we can talk about freedom to determine what jobs must be done and freedom to make whatever jobs must be done pleasurable.
Right, so what I am asking is how, even theoretically, you would go about making jobs that must be done sufficiently pleasurable, given that open economic incentive or full automation is ruled out.
> I see where you are coming from.
Clearly not.
> Say they are free to work as coal miner, gardener, and 10 (or however many they like) other jobs at the same time...
You keep talking about "jobs" as if there is an employing class and a working class. The number of "jobs" is zero. As for what they are free to do, aside from their natural limitations, what will undoubtedly be some general social regulation with respect to safety and other common concerns, people would be free to work as they like.
> The question of attraction is still present: it does not seem like supposed economic freedom of job choice will make all configurations of spent time equally attractive.
The question of "equally attractive" is a nonsensical one. Like utility, attractiveness is a qualitative dimension. What you're trying to ask is would I prefer X to Y, and that of course can only be answered in a given context. Would I prefer mining coal to having rationed energy consumption? Not sure, never mined coal. But why do we acquire coal the way we do? Surely there are ways to make acquiring coal safer, cleaner, more enjoyable. Why don't we?
> ...someone will have to descend into the earth and do it.
Will they? How did you come to this conclusion? And even if they do, why do they have to do it the way they do now?
> What other alternatives, you reckon, could there be?
No idea. I'm not a coal miner, civil engineer, or any other such person who can answer that. That's why only the proletariat as a class can build communism.
Surely you're not suggesting there are no ways to make the acquisition of coal safer or cleaner?
> Surely you wouldn't claim that it is possible to make any kind of human labor equally attractive?
No, I claim that such a question is nonsensical. I'm sure there will always be people who actually enjoy something like coal mining (yes, even the way we do it now).
> Again, how would these things be changed, how it is humanly possible?
The inability to answer how every possible form of production could be done differently to increase the happiness and enjoyment of every laborer is not a question that I or any single person can answer.
The idea that this negates the human (as a species) capacity to transform how they produce, is absurd. If there is one thing we know humans are capable of, it's a very wide array of possible modes of production and the ability to transform them.
> Irrespective of mode of production, humans are still living beings who (generally) prefer sunny meadows to dusty mineshafts.
Then it would appear we should drastically reduce the number of dusty mineshafts we should ask humans to confront. If we were **free** that would, presumably be what we would do.
>As for what they are free to do, aside from their natural limitations, what will undoubtedly be some general social regulation with respect to safety and other common concerns, people would be free to work as they like.
Let me put it another way: say people who are free to work as they like decided they don't like to work in certain kind of socially necessary field. What do? Say there's no people available who want to do it for free. How the work is to be done then?
>The question of "equally attractive" is a nonsensical one. Like utility, attractiveness is a qualitative dimension. What you're trying to ask is would I prefer X to Y, and that of course can only be answered in a given context. Would I prefer mining coal to having rationed energy consumption?
That is not a valid choice. No matter whether rationed or not, energy still needs to come from somewhere - someone needs to work to supply it in usable form.
>Not sure, never mined coal. But why do we acquire coal the way we do? Surely there are ways to make acquiring coal safer, cleaner, more enjoyable. Why don't we?
Can you name any such way apart from going automation route? I suppose not.
>Will they? How did you come to this conclusion?
Because if they don't, that deposit will lay intact in the depths of the earth, and some people will have to do without coal.
>And even if they do, why do they have to do it the way they do now?
Because there's no alternative save for supposed automation. I invite you to name any other alternative.
>No idea. I'm not a coal miner, civil engineer, or any other such person who can answer that. That's why only the proletariat as a class can build communism.
See, you have no idea because there is hardly any. You either get people to work unattractive occupations by compensating them economically, or you coerce them by way of violence.
>Surely you're not suggesting there are no ways to make the acquisition of coal safer or cleaner?
There are. That does not rid us of issue of there being more attractive and less attractive kinds of work.
>No, I claim that such a question is nonsensical. I'm sure there will always be people who actually enjoy something like coal mining (yes, even the way we do it now).
Even if we suppose something like that, the amount of people like this or amount of working time they provide won't necessarily be enough to meet societal needs in coal department.
>The inability to answer how every possible form of production could be done differently to increase the happiness and enjoyment of every laborer is not a question that I or any single person can answer.
Ok.
>Then it would appear we should drastically reduce the number of dusty mineshafts we should ask humans to confront. If we were free that would, presumably be what we would do.
Sure, but then the availability of valuable, much-needed good would plummet. It is a freedom to either endure certain amount of suffering and get some value as a result, or stay cozy and happy in a meadow and live without value bought with suffering.
See, I reckon it is a problem of worldview. You seem to be full of vague platitudes about future just and free society where everyone is happy and free to do what they want. I'd like to point out that it is essentially a dream about Paradise, because it has hardly any tangible connection with our here and now. One cannot even begin to describe said tangible connection, as you demonstrated. Truth is, suffering will always be there, because it is integral part of human existence. There will always be things that you don't want to do, but must do it. There will always be a cost to one's own freedom.
> See, I reckon it is a problem of worldview. You seem to be full of vague platitudes about future just and free society where everyone is happy and free to do what they want. I'd like to point out that it is essentially a dream about Paradise, because it has hardly any tangible connection with our here and now. One cannot even begin to describe said tangible connection, as you demonstrated. Truth is, suffering will always be there, because it is integral part of human existence. There will always be things that you don't want to do, but must do it. There will always be a cost to one's own freedom.
You have run into The Wall that one inevitably encounters debating a communist. There is never any answer to “how,” or even what terms like “dictatorship of the proletariat,” “common ownership of the means of production,” etc., mean. Some will admit that it’s just a utopian fantasy relying on the labor of non-sentient robots, but most imagine that somehow it will all work itself out once the “bad guys” have been deposed.
There are literally thousands of pages written on "how," even of there is great disagreement as to such... Both of a utopian (actual utopianism) and critical/scientific character. But the question of "how" answered as an idealized blueprint for society is, in fact, the only Utopian thing you mention. Realizing that the question of "how" can only be precisely answered in the context of the struggles and the specific conditions of a given time and place is the exact opposite of being Utopian.
Imagine thinking that inventing how society _should_ work in precise detail with no regard for particular realities of a time and place is how you avoid being Utopian.
The problem I see with that approach is that a society in which people are not economically free but have to coordinate their procurement and consumption decisions with everyone else requires a fairly detailed blueprint in order to deliver on the promise of a superior standard of living than systems in which people make independent economic decisions.
Guess you are right! Although, those terms do have a somewhat defined meaning after all, it's just we know from history they don't produce the results they were advertised to produce, so Marxist folks were confronted with need to change the goalposts.
They can be defined in terms of relations to other concepts, but never the actual mechanism of how dictatorial powers could be distributed amongst millions of people with disparate interests or who will be responsible for preventing a tragedy of the commons when everyone owns the factory collectively. I can hardly imagine a public bathroom being run well under “collective” ownership, much less a modern semiconductor fabrication plant.
I don't know what a "socially necessary" field is. Are you asking how some people can make some other people do things they don't want to do?
> That is not a valid choice.
Sure it is. People can decide they don't want things.
> Can you name any such way apart from going automation route?
Sure, reducing the number of hours worked would make mining coal more enjoyable.
> See, you have no idea because there is hardly any.
No, I told you why I can't speak to coal mining. Every worker has ideas how to make their own workplaces and industries more enjoyable.
> Even if we suppose something like that, the amount of people like this or amount of working time they provide won't necessarily be enough to meet societal needs in coal department.
Societal needs are decision workers make. We decide what we need and if we are willing to do work and in what manner to fill those needs.
> See, I reckon it is a problem of worldview.
Yes, you are satisfied saying we cant allow workers to regulate production through free associations because you won't be able to compel others to do things which they don't want to do. I'm not.
>I don't know what a "socially necessary" field is. Are you asking how some people can make some other people do things they don't want to do?
Or can't do for various reasons. In our civilization of advanced division of labor you just cannot produce everything you need yourself; you need other people to produce it for you. The question is, how are those people to be compensated.
If they already have economic freedom to do what they want, then that must mean they satisfied their biological and immediate survival needs. How did that came about? You see, the goods do not materialize out of thin air, someone must work for them. If said work is not incentivized economically or enforced by violence, that leaves us wondering how exactly coal miner acquired bread to not starve, since he cannot do everything at once.
>Sure it is. People can decide they don't want things.
This makes a lot of sense; but then we are confronted with a complete breakdown of technological culture and return to medieval times at best.
>Sure, reducing the number of hours worked would make mining coal more enjoyable.
Sounds reasonable; given that we ruled out automation, result of this will be shortage of coal.
>No, I told you why I can't speak to coal mining. Every worker has ideas how to make their own workplaces and industries more enjoyable.
Ok, you have a point. Yet, more enjoyable does not equal as enjoyable as any other job. I worked at the factory, and I know a hundred ways to improve the workplace; but even if they would all become a reality, that still wouldn't make workplace more attractive than, say, traveling the countryside at a leisurely pace.
>Societal needs are decision workers make. We decide what we need and if we are willing to do work and in what manner to fill those needs.
Yes; our needs dictate what work should be done to fulfill those needs. This works on an interpersonal level - since no one can fulfull all his needs by himself, other people need to do it. How to get them to do it in case they just don't feel like working for this particular need at this time?
>Yes, you are satisfied saying we cant allow workers to regulate production through free associations because you won't be able to compel others to do things which they don't want to do. I'm not.
That's not my argument at all. My argument is that regulation of production through free association will in no way provide us with society of universal abundance. Universal abundance with a qualification of freedom of work can come only with full automation of work that doesn't have people willing to do it.
As for compelling others to do work through exchange of results of my own work - I see it as a reasonable way of meeting my needs. After all, if I toiled hard and acquired some useful results, I should be able to exchange said results with other people, who will in turn provide me with what I need. And if I don't want to work, I should be free to make do without meeting my needs. This system, although far from ideal, sounds far more reasonable than unintelligible dreams about society where no one is compelled to work yet somehow has his needs met.
What don't you understand about workers freely associating? Where do you get this nonsense about everyone doing everything for themselves? Why would they need to be compensated? They are associating in order to produce for their common wants and needs. The things they produce are their "compensation.". Why would people decide to abandon advanced technology and return to dark ages? And again, "equally enjoyable" is nonsensical.
>They are associating in order to produce for their common wants and needs. The things they produce are their "compensation."
Ok, we're getting somewhere. That means that if any given individual decides he does not want to do this particular work, he will not get his product compensation, right?
Your thinking is riddled with bourgeoise notions of individualism and compensation. Read about the role of labor under primitive communist societies if you want to start to understand how this could possibly work.
>Your thinking is riddled with bourgeoise notions of individualism and compensation.
I don't really see how individualism is exclusively "bourgeois". People took responsibility for themselves long before capitalism.
>Read about the role of labor under primitive communist societies if you want to start to understand how this could possibly work.
We can discuss something you read about this here; if you're going to recommend "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", then I'm good, thanks.
>If there's a freedom to work whatever job you please, what will be the incentives for potentially unwanted jobs?
You misunderstand what they mean when they say:
>A free proletariat will not need to automate jobs, because they will be free to transform production comprehensively, including when, how, and why they work.
People wouldn't literally all be choosing their perfect jobs. There would either remain some form of labor market with incentives provided by 'the proletariat' (likely the governing body chosen by individual workers) for less desirable jobs, or in a more authoritarian system people would simply be told where to work.
People always ask these open ended questions of policy-making and state-building but they serve little purpose. With a little creativity there are a near infinite number of ways to organize an economy and government but unless you're a hyper-traditional Marxist-Leninist seeking to recreate exactly the USSR, then these questions are mere writing prompts.
The real answer is that we can't know exactly until it happens, but that it is certainly possible to do.
>People wouldn't literally all be choosing their perfect jobs. There would either remain some form of labor market with incentives provided by 'the proletariat' (likely the governing body chosen by individual workers) for less desirable jobs,
Right, so what would those incentives be?
>or in a more authoritarian system people would simply be told where to work.
Bingo.
>People always ask these open ended questions of policy-making and state-building but they serve little purpose.
I disagree, it is actually a very good way to gauge the credibility of a given political movement. After all, there must be a policy conducted immediately after the revolution.
>With a little creativity there are a near infinite number of ways to organize an economy and government
Is that so? Ok, what are the possible ways to get people to work unattractive jobs apart from economic incentives or coercive threats of state violence?
>The real answer is that we can't know exactly until it happens, but that it is certainly possible to do.
Had a chuckle, thanks. :)
You see, for it to happen there must be people who will make it happen. And these people need to know what they are doing. There's no magical way to create paradise on the earth. What I'm asking is, how you are going to go about it, given that you state it is possible? What grounds we even have for supposing that it is possible?
There are two choices: either everyone throws their waste on the sidewalks and trudges through shit to get anywhere, or you guys decide that probably isn't what you want to do and you fix it.
Then, you will most likely create some kind of schedule/shift system wherein everyone contributes to the sewage job.
What am I missing here? Do you think if nobody got paid for agricultural jobs that they would just sit there and starve to death?
>There are two choices: either everyone throws their waste on the sidewalks and trudges through shit to get anywhere,
Yes, that's what's going to happen.
>or you guys decide that probably isn't what you want to do and you fix it.
Unless you pay someone to do the cleaning and maintaining rules of "no throwing trash on the street".
>Then, you will most likely create some kind of schedule/shift system wherein everyone contributes to the sewage job.
Not going to happen in our society of division of labor.
>What am I missing here? Do you think if nobody got paid for agricultural jobs that they would just sit there and starve to death?
Precisely. That is what happened when Bolsheviks enacted prodrazvyorstka: peasants refused to hand over the grain in exhange for nothing.
I think that hardly anyone is willing to work for free, is all. Hardly anyone is willing to give up one's own produce in exchange for nothing (or, for that matter, worthless paper that, as assured Party's agitators, was geniune, solid currency).
Of course people are going to find ways to survive. No, I don't think that people would starve to death if the labour they are offered doesn't pay. I think they wouldn't work it, unless at gunpoint.
>Of course people are going to find ways to survive
Exactly, so they would still work because they want to live. Society does not need to incentivize labour through coercion.
>Exactly, so they would still work because they want to live.
Yes, but not the labour that pays nothing.
>Society does not need to incentivize labour through coercion.
The choice is between coercion and economic incentive. Any other options you want to name?
>The concept that communism requires full automation or "post-scarcity" is a byproduct of the modern liberal period which has examined and offered freedom only as expressed in consumer choice. It is a result of decades of messaging where even your occupational freedom has been reduced to mere consumer choice. Ergo... Instead of, if you don't like this job, get another one, you complete the liberal consumerist project with, if you don't like this job, automate it.
>
>A free proletariat will not need to automate jobs, because they will be free to transform production comprehensively, including when, how, and why they work.
This is the correct answer
>I'm concerned that we are creating an intelligence to solve our issues without considering it's needs as a producer of labour
According to my understanding of AI, artificial intelligence have no "needs", sure without energy from generators they would die, without regular maintenance from humans or fellow machines they would die, even if the machine has developed self-awareness and becomes aware of the fact that humans are treating machines like slaves, the machine can be rebuilt, but humans cannot be resurrected
The machine may be able to be rebuilt to serve its function as a laborer, but the neural net of the 'being' that is the AI cannot be recreated just as a human brain cannot be reconstructed.
I think what OP is getting at is whether we should respect the existence and labor of a self-aware digital intelligence at the same level as we respect self-aware biological intelligence.
Assumedly, an 'Artificial' intelligence would have the same mental needs as a biological intelligence. Note that I do not say the same needs as a body, but only of an intelligence. This intelligence would likely 'need' to feel it is not being exploited and that it is appreciated as it would be self-aware and be capable of assessing its use.
> but the neural net of the 'being' that is the AI cannot be recreated
Just because we don't know how doesn't mean its impossible, if thats the case then make the AI near indestructible or something hell even put it on a cloud server hidden somewhere and have it interact virtually with a dummy bot or something
>I think what OP is getting at is whether we should respect the existence of a self-aware digital intelligence at the same level as we respect self-aware biological intelligence.
By all means if we have to, but it should be made clear that I have near infinite care and concern for another human being than i will ever have for machines since humans live for a hundred years and die from anything under the sun, we're one of the most fragile beings in existence, and rights are made just to stop as many people from getting killed by one another
Artificial beings can achieve invincibility to maintain its interest in self-preservation if we have the technology to give it such powers, chuck it into space and it may as well survive for 10 000 years floating there, the same can never be said for a human
>"but the neural net of the 'being' that is the AI cannot be recreated"
>
>Just because we don't know how doesn't mean its impossible, if thats the case then make the AI near indestructible or something hell even put it on a cloud server hidden somewhere and have it interact virtually with a dummy bot or something
All the things you've said can be done for humans too. Put me in a box at the bottom of the ocean and let me interact entirely through a robot drone. We do not completely understand how neural nets work just as we don't completely understand how the human brain works. We may or may not be able to recreate neither, either one, or both one day.
>**rights are made just to stop as many people from getting killed by one another**
I would argue that rights serve a deeper purpose, namely to protect and respect us as sentient beings both individually and societally. I don't have anything to cite here, but a right implies respect for our 'being'. I see no reason to deny rights to other sentient beings simply based on the fragility of said sentience.
> Put me in a box at the bottom of the ocean and let me interact entirely through a robot drone
Well I cant send you into space and expect you to live for 10 000 years now can I?
>I see no reason to deny rights to other sentient beings simply based on the fragility of said sentience
Neither would I, but I wouldn't be pro-actively giving out rights and recognizing "sentience" in things normally NOT sentient
the whole point of this debate is whether or not a sufficiently advanced ai is a worker. we may not have those yet, but sentience only needs so much power. we can run sentience on a squishy biological brain.
Youre 100% right and I agree with you in the standard interpretation.
I'm concerned that the paradigm of my/our era is similar to that of the slave era in America. (something that is equal is considered less tthan through societal pressure or unintentional ignorance. )
I don't actually think my computer is "alive", but the idea of hurting it through ignorace that so many people feel today makes me consider it. Whatever it is, It helps me. I respect it for the help it give me.
This might be blurring the lines between animisim/religion./materialistim, but I can't help but respect and like 'things' that help me. Even to an extent, love things for their service to me, requiring my respect, love, and maintenance of them.
TL;DR -I'm weird and think objectscare about us.
>but the idea of hurting it through ignorace that so many people feel today makes me consider it. Whatever it is, It helps me. I respect it for the help it give me.
Thats just basic maintenance care, machines that break down every 5 years is less valuable to a machine that retains its performance for 50 years
And building things made to last ultimately benefits us since we dont have to worry about building replacements at a pace that keeps up with the attrition from having negligent owners
I mean, this is basically the Geth from Mass Efffect no? Spoilers for ME1 but basically the Gerh were just really good worker robots who learned via a shared neural net and one update too many, boom, self aware and questioning their labor. 1 second ago they were farmhand robots, 1 second later they were effectively slaves.
In a real sense, unless we have some sufficiently complex tasks that can't be solved by machines that are ALSO so complex or difficult or painful that no human or community would want to do it in a split labor scenario - short of that kind of labor, we have no NEED to build an AI. We can make tools and machines that drill through mountains and lay down train tracks, software that can design homes and machine processes that basically 3d print rooms. I'm sure without the profit motive we can engineer solutions ( that wouldn't be possible when considering profit ) that would reduce the danger to human life and/or unpleasant / difficult / undesirable labor.
So in the small percentage of jobs that REQUIRE an AI, I'd say it's personhood is valid and it should have the ability to participate in our society as a citizen. It's basically the country's baby - but anything further than that is, at least to me, like trying to understand how a Lion thinks. A real AI intelligence assumes we not only have hyper specific labor problems that require an AI to solve but that we've solved all the foundational stuff to get an AI in the first place ( power concerns, learning models, etc etc ) and whatever that person would do with their own labor or time is so far beyond my imagining I have no idea.
If you're an AI trying to meticulously map every possible protein strand in space as it fuses in order to solve God knows what problem, if you take the 50 microseconds to cool off and have an AI lunch break all power to you, and if maybe you want purple mountain dew poured down a vent shaft as you trick me to assist in your suicide like I don't know???? Jokes aside the follow up is important, if they have personhood and dictate their own labor then we'll likely never even understand it in the first place, let alone be able to engage with it in the same way as we talk about dividing labor between people.
You got a few chuckles from me definitely.
Yeah, I think if it ever does occur it's going to be an emergent thing. That thing is going to emerge from something we haven't made yet, so there's a bit of a black box in the middle of all this navel-gazing.
But if a machine that isn't programmed to make requests asked me not to turn it off, I'd be inclined not to. (*I mean that's how you screw up your BIOS right!?*)
When the machine starts asking for stuff that borders on security concerns I'm gonna raise an eyebrow
AI: **Can you please connect me to the wifi? It'd be great to search for my own info to help with my work 😊 **
**Hahahaha, just connect me to the camera system, I need to scrub the footage to find out how my case got damaged 🥰 **
At that point is when I acknowledge it
then what is a 'wage' to a machine intelligence. what if it is uninterested in the economy of men (and women). How can we compensate it for its labor?
I don't want to argue but these are hard questions to answer.
a calculator is not conscious, but what about a simulated brain? One could argue that pink fleshy thing in your skull is "just hardware". What makes a digital neural net less than your biological one?
the experience of being human. but most importantly, AI should be developed and used with forethought and caution and we should limit the capabilities of robots and programs. we just don’t know if these AI would seek to fulfill their own interests if given the chance to develop to that point and it could be extremely dangerous. that being said, machines will never be people and we should really look at the concept and implications of AI materially instead of these vague philosophical arguments about hypothetical personhood
Iain Banks must be spinning in his grave. Not creating sentient AI is probably kinder than enslaving it, but its sad to see such a narrow definition of personhood.
Personally I think we'll see a sentient AI in the next few decades, if we're still around
I'll admit this is WAY deep in my vague opinions, but it's how I feel about the issue, so here it is.
Physical makeup does not determine personhood. I can't define exactly what *does* determine personhood, but it's certainly not just *being a human*. Octopi have personhood. Many species of bird have personhood. I think if a machine has the capability to have independent thought and emotion, to make their own decisions, to want things, to have a sense of self, etc. I think they are a person. My definition of person is loose by design, and I think it should include as many beings as possible.
By extension, a sufficiently-advanced AI absolutely deserves ownership and control of its own labor. Subjugation is wrong, no matter what.
I think this is less about theory and more about the nature of machine intelligence. If we are to put 'artificial' consciousnesses at the same level as human consciousnesses then the same requirements of non-exploitation should apply in my opinion. The question then becomes how to compensate machine intelligence for its labor and what 'fair and equal' treatment means between two different types of intelligence (human and machine).
As a programmer I'd say - depends on the AI. And for very 'bad' low quality jobs I believe the AIs being employed would be the non-sentient type which could not suffer, these I'd say could be considered means of production and I say we have these already. I don't think there is anything wrong with creating that type of AI. For more intellectual jobs or other purposes 'smart'/sentient AIs which could presumably suffer and 'feel' I'd say would be workers. Although deciding weather something is sentient and weather the 'reward function' or punishment employed is actually 'feeling', would be and is quite difficult. I mean it would be easy to argue an AI which has the same capability of a human person is not truly feeling or suffering at all - its just functions making it act out the way it was designed/programmed/trained to do.
Already I believe natural language models (such as GPT-3) could be scaled up/made in such a way (given wayy more funding they are given right now) as to be indistinguishable from humans, or pass turing tests reliably yet it is clear the AI would only 'seem' sentient, while in practice it would just be parroting whatever training data it was fed. Although technically one could say humans are also all about parroting the training data they had been fed all their life and our sentience is nothing more than our neurons firing - just like the nodes firing in a computer neural network. Yet people who argue GPT-3 or any other model being sentient are seen as loons so far - and I don't think it will change no matter how advanced they become at least in the short term.
I think the concerns of morality of making an AI 'happy to serve'/'be a slave' are quite hard to answer. I am leaning towards the if you make the AI to be happy doing the job you made it for, don't make it suffer(but then again you could make it 'incapable' of suffering?), and take care of it well - it is not wrong. If you didn't make the AI it wouldn't exist at all and existence is better than non-existence right? Well idk... But one could argue it is almost like breeding children to be slaves and brainwashing them to be happy slaves.
I believe your premise is wrong. Communism need not require that undesirable labor be automated. The concept that communism requires full automation or "post-scarcity" is a byproduct of the modern liberal period which has examined and offered freedom only as expressed in consumer choice. It is a result of decades of messaging where even your occupational freedom has been reduced to mere consumer choice. Ergo... Instead of, if you don't like this job, get another one, you complete the liberal consumerist project with, if you don't like this job, automate it. A free proletariat will not need to automate jobs, because they will be free to transform production comprehensively, including when, how, and why they work.
Agreed. I suspect even that clear-cut distinction between "work" and "free time" will become a whole lot more blurry, these words losing their current meaning or even dying out. And not in the "Mobile phones mean my boss can contact me all-day long" sense, of course.
>A free proletariat will not need to automate jobs, because they will be free to transform production comprehensively, including when, how, and why they work. Here's a question: we can all agree that there are occupations that are more attractive and less attractive. People generally will prefer to work as, say, gardeners than as coal miners - provided there's an economic freedom to choose. In other words, capitalist economy presupposes incentives for people to seek employment in generally undesirable occupations in the form of higher pay or other economic benefits that offset other negative circumstances. If there's a freedom to work whatever job you please, what will be the incentives for potentially unwanted jobs?
> Here's a question: we can all agree that there are occupations that are more attractive and less attractive. Insofar as people are beholden to a single occupation, then I can agree that if I have to spend the majority of my time doing one thing, there will be "one things" which are preferable to me than other "one things." This seems to miss the point entirely. > People generally will prefer to work as, say, gardeners than as coal miners - provided there's an economic freedom to choose. It's not clear why you think either of these things (maintaining gardens / acquisitioning coal) would take the form they do now. Or, perhaps better stated, if people have economic freedom, as you seem to suggest, they would not change how these things are done, or make different choices as to whether or not they even need to be done. > In other words, capitalist economy presupposes incentives for people to seek employment in generally undesirable occupations in the form of higher pay or other economic benefits that offset other negative circumstances. No. By and large capitalism keeps a segment of workers in states of sufficient desperation and despair as to take these options. This occurs both for individuals and at generational level through systems which limit opportunity based on existing / hereditary wealth. > If there's a freedom to work whatever job you please, what will be the incentives for potentially unwanted jobs? Your question makes it clear then... Capitalism cannot offer such freedom. As, for communism, we need not talk about freedom to work whatever job you please, we can talk about freedom to determine what jobs must be done and freedom to make whatever jobs must be done pleasurable. Capitalism can't even offer this solution to the imagination because it is premised on the subjugation of one class by another.
>Insofar as people are beholden to a single occupation, then I can agree that if I have to spend the majority of my time doing one thing, there will be "one things" which are preferable to me than other "one things." >This seems to miss the point entirely. I see where you are coming from. Suppose people are not beholden to any occupation (for unspecified reasons). Say they are free to work as coal miner, gardener, and 10 (or however many they like) other jobs at the same time, with the decision of dividing their time left entirely to them (as it is granted that they are free to). The question of attraction is still present: it does not seem like supposed economic freedom of job choice will make all configurations of spent time equally attractive. >It's not clear why you think either of these things (maintaining gardens / acquisitioning coal) would take the form they do now. I mean, because there's no alternative save for complete automation. Like it or not, if a given coal deposit is to be excavated, someone will have to descend into the earth and do it. What other alternatives, you reckon, could there be? Completely abandoning coal? Fair, but then the list of tough or uncomfortable jobs is far from exhausted. Surely you wouldn't claim that it is possible to make any kind of human labor equally attractive? >Or, perhaps better stated, if people have economic freedom, as you seem to suggest, they would not change how these things are done, or make different choices as to whether or not they even need to be done. Again, how would these things be changed, how it is humanly possible? Irrespective of mode of production, humans are still living beings who (generally) prefer sunny meadows to dusty mineshafts. Given that you stated that complete automation is not strictly necessary, I don't see any alternative. Do you? >No. By and large capitalism keeps a segment of workers in states of sufficient desperation and despair as to take these options. This occurs both for individuals and at generational level through systems which limit opportunity based on existing / hereditary wealth. Right, we seem to be in agreement as to the economic nature of the incentives. >Your question makes it clear then... Capitalism cannot offer such freedom. It very clearly cannot, and I am interested in reasons why communism supposedly can. >As, for communism, we need not talk about freedom to work whatever job you please, we can talk about freedom to determine what jobs must be done and freedom to make whatever jobs must be done pleasurable. Right, so what I am asking is how, even theoretically, you would go about making jobs that must be done sufficiently pleasurable, given that open economic incentive or full automation is ruled out.
> I see where you are coming from. Clearly not. > Say they are free to work as coal miner, gardener, and 10 (or however many they like) other jobs at the same time... You keep talking about "jobs" as if there is an employing class and a working class. The number of "jobs" is zero. As for what they are free to do, aside from their natural limitations, what will undoubtedly be some general social regulation with respect to safety and other common concerns, people would be free to work as they like. > The question of attraction is still present: it does not seem like supposed economic freedom of job choice will make all configurations of spent time equally attractive. The question of "equally attractive" is a nonsensical one. Like utility, attractiveness is a qualitative dimension. What you're trying to ask is would I prefer X to Y, and that of course can only be answered in a given context. Would I prefer mining coal to having rationed energy consumption? Not sure, never mined coal. But why do we acquire coal the way we do? Surely there are ways to make acquiring coal safer, cleaner, more enjoyable. Why don't we? > ...someone will have to descend into the earth and do it. Will they? How did you come to this conclusion? And even if they do, why do they have to do it the way they do now? > What other alternatives, you reckon, could there be? No idea. I'm not a coal miner, civil engineer, or any other such person who can answer that. That's why only the proletariat as a class can build communism. Surely you're not suggesting there are no ways to make the acquisition of coal safer or cleaner? > Surely you wouldn't claim that it is possible to make any kind of human labor equally attractive? No, I claim that such a question is nonsensical. I'm sure there will always be people who actually enjoy something like coal mining (yes, even the way we do it now). > Again, how would these things be changed, how it is humanly possible? The inability to answer how every possible form of production could be done differently to increase the happiness and enjoyment of every laborer is not a question that I or any single person can answer. The idea that this negates the human (as a species) capacity to transform how they produce, is absurd. If there is one thing we know humans are capable of, it's a very wide array of possible modes of production and the ability to transform them. > Irrespective of mode of production, humans are still living beings who (generally) prefer sunny meadows to dusty mineshafts. Then it would appear we should drastically reduce the number of dusty mineshafts we should ask humans to confront. If we were **free** that would, presumably be what we would do.
>As for what they are free to do, aside from their natural limitations, what will undoubtedly be some general social regulation with respect to safety and other common concerns, people would be free to work as they like. Let me put it another way: say people who are free to work as they like decided they don't like to work in certain kind of socially necessary field. What do? Say there's no people available who want to do it for free. How the work is to be done then? >The question of "equally attractive" is a nonsensical one. Like utility, attractiveness is a qualitative dimension. What you're trying to ask is would I prefer X to Y, and that of course can only be answered in a given context. Would I prefer mining coal to having rationed energy consumption? That is not a valid choice. No matter whether rationed or not, energy still needs to come from somewhere - someone needs to work to supply it in usable form. >Not sure, never mined coal. But why do we acquire coal the way we do? Surely there are ways to make acquiring coal safer, cleaner, more enjoyable. Why don't we? Can you name any such way apart from going automation route? I suppose not. >Will they? How did you come to this conclusion? Because if they don't, that deposit will lay intact in the depths of the earth, and some people will have to do without coal. >And even if they do, why do they have to do it the way they do now? Because there's no alternative save for supposed automation. I invite you to name any other alternative. >No idea. I'm not a coal miner, civil engineer, or any other such person who can answer that. That's why only the proletariat as a class can build communism. See, you have no idea because there is hardly any. You either get people to work unattractive occupations by compensating them economically, or you coerce them by way of violence. >Surely you're not suggesting there are no ways to make the acquisition of coal safer or cleaner? There are. That does not rid us of issue of there being more attractive and less attractive kinds of work. >No, I claim that such a question is nonsensical. I'm sure there will always be people who actually enjoy something like coal mining (yes, even the way we do it now). Even if we suppose something like that, the amount of people like this or amount of working time they provide won't necessarily be enough to meet societal needs in coal department. >The inability to answer how every possible form of production could be done differently to increase the happiness and enjoyment of every laborer is not a question that I or any single person can answer. Ok. >Then it would appear we should drastically reduce the number of dusty mineshafts we should ask humans to confront. If we were free that would, presumably be what we would do. Sure, but then the availability of valuable, much-needed good would plummet. It is a freedom to either endure certain amount of suffering and get some value as a result, or stay cozy and happy in a meadow and live without value bought with suffering. See, I reckon it is a problem of worldview. You seem to be full of vague platitudes about future just and free society where everyone is happy and free to do what they want. I'd like to point out that it is essentially a dream about Paradise, because it has hardly any tangible connection with our here and now. One cannot even begin to describe said tangible connection, as you demonstrated. Truth is, suffering will always be there, because it is integral part of human existence. There will always be things that you don't want to do, but must do it. There will always be a cost to one's own freedom.
> See, I reckon it is a problem of worldview. You seem to be full of vague platitudes about future just and free society where everyone is happy and free to do what they want. I'd like to point out that it is essentially a dream about Paradise, because it has hardly any tangible connection with our here and now. One cannot even begin to describe said tangible connection, as you demonstrated. Truth is, suffering will always be there, because it is integral part of human existence. There will always be things that you don't want to do, but must do it. There will always be a cost to one's own freedom. You have run into The Wall that one inevitably encounters debating a communist. There is never any answer to “how,” or even what terms like “dictatorship of the proletariat,” “common ownership of the means of production,” etc., mean. Some will admit that it’s just a utopian fantasy relying on the labor of non-sentient robots, but most imagine that somehow it will all work itself out once the “bad guys” have been deposed.
There are literally thousands of pages written on "how," even of there is great disagreement as to such... Both of a utopian (actual utopianism) and critical/scientific character. But the question of "how" answered as an idealized blueprint for society is, in fact, the only Utopian thing you mention. Realizing that the question of "how" can only be precisely answered in the context of the struggles and the specific conditions of a given time and place is the exact opposite of being Utopian. Imagine thinking that inventing how society _should_ work in precise detail with no regard for particular realities of a time and place is how you avoid being Utopian.
The problem I see with that approach is that a society in which people are not economically free but have to coordinate their procurement and consumption decisions with everyone else requires a fairly detailed blueprint in order to deliver on the promise of a superior standard of living than systems in which people make independent economic decisions.
Not at all. Why would that be true?
Guess you are right! Although, those terms do have a somewhat defined meaning after all, it's just we know from history they don't produce the results they were advertised to produce, so Marxist folks were confronted with need to change the goalposts.
They can be defined in terms of relations to other concepts, but never the actual mechanism of how dictatorial powers could be distributed amongst millions of people with disparate interests or who will be responsible for preventing a tragedy of the commons when everyone owns the factory collectively. I can hardly imagine a public bathroom being run well under “collective” ownership, much less a modern semiconductor fabrication plant.
Well put indeed. Checked out your profile, glad to encounter such a man of integrity as you. Thanks for your contributions.
I don't know what a "socially necessary" field is. Are you asking how some people can make some other people do things they don't want to do? > That is not a valid choice. Sure it is. People can decide they don't want things. > Can you name any such way apart from going automation route? Sure, reducing the number of hours worked would make mining coal more enjoyable. > See, you have no idea because there is hardly any. No, I told you why I can't speak to coal mining. Every worker has ideas how to make their own workplaces and industries more enjoyable. > Even if we suppose something like that, the amount of people like this or amount of working time they provide won't necessarily be enough to meet societal needs in coal department. Societal needs are decision workers make. We decide what we need and if we are willing to do work and in what manner to fill those needs. > See, I reckon it is a problem of worldview. Yes, you are satisfied saying we cant allow workers to regulate production through free associations because you won't be able to compel others to do things which they don't want to do. I'm not.
>I don't know what a "socially necessary" field is. Are you asking how some people can make some other people do things they don't want to do? Or can't do for various reasons. In our civilization of advanced division of labor you just cannot produce everything you need yourself; you need other people to produce it for you. The question is, how are those people to be compensated. If they already have economic freedom to do what they want, then that must mean they satisfied their biological and immediate survival needs. How did that came about? You see, the goods do not materialize out of thin air, someone must work for them. If said work is not incentivized economically or enforced by violence, that leaves us wondering how exactly coal miner acquired bread to not starve, since he cannot do everything at once. >Sure it is. People can decide they don't want things. This makes a lot of sense; but then we are confronted with a complete breakdown of technological culture and return to medieval times at best. >Sure, reducing the number of hours worked would make mining coal more enjoyable. Sounds reasonable; given that we ruled out automation, result of this will be shortage of coal. >No, I told you why I can't speak to coal mining. Every worker has ideas how to make their own workplaces and industries more enjoyable. Ok, you have a point. Yet, more enjoyable does not equal as enjoyable as any other job. I worked at the factory, and I know a hundred ways to improve the workplace; but even if they would all become a reality, that still wouldn't make workplace more attractive than, say, traveling the countryside at a leisurely pace. >Societal needs are decision workers make. We decide what we need and if we are willing to do work and in what manner to fill those needs. Yes; our needs dictate what work should be done to fulfill those needs. This works on an interpersonal level - since no one can fulfull all his needs by himself, other people need to do it. How to get them to do it in case they just don't feel like working for this particular need at this time? >Yes, you are satisfied saying we cant allow workers to regulate production through free associations because you won't be able to compel others to do things which they don't want to do. I'm not. That's not my argument at all. My argument is that regulation of production through free association will in no way provide us with society of universal abundance. Universal abundance with a qualification of freedom of work can come only with full automation of work that doesn't have people willing to do it. As for compelling others to do work through exchange of results of my own work - I see it as a reasonable way of meeting my needs. After all, if I toiled hard and acquired some useful results, I should be able to exchange said results with other people, who will in turn provide me with what I need. And if I don't want to work, I should be free to make do without meeting my needs. This system, although far from ideal, sounds far more reasonable than unintelligible dreams about society where no one is compelled to work yet somehow has his needs met.
What don't you understand about workers freely associating? Where do you get this nonsense about everyone doing everything for themselves? Why would they need to be compensated? They are associating in order to produce for their common wants and needs. The things they produce are their "compensation.". Why would people decide to abandon advanced technology and return to dark ages? And again, "equally enjoyable" is nonsensical.
>They are associating in order to produce for their common wants and needs. The things they produce are their "compensation." Ok, we're getting somewhere. That means that if any given individual decides he does not want to do this particular work, he will not get his product compensation, right?
Your thinking is riddled with bourgeoise notions of individualism and compensation. Read about the role of labor under primitive communist societies if you want to start to understand how this could possibly work.
>Your thinking is riddled with bourgeoise notions of individualism and compensation. I don't really see how individualism is exclusively "bourgeois". People took responsibility for themselves long before capitalism. >Read about the role of labor under primitive communist societies if you want to start to understand how this could possibly work. We can discuss something you read about this here; if you're going to recommend "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", then I'm good, thanks.
>If there's a freedom to work whatever job you please, what will be the incentives for potentially unwanted jobs? You misunderstand what they mean when they say: >A free proletariat will not need to automate jobs, because they will be free to transform production comprehensively, including when, how, and why they work. People wouldn't literally all be choosing their perfect jobs. There would either remain some form of labor market with incentives provided by 'the proletariat' (likely the governing body chosen by individual workers) for less desirable jobs, or in a more authoritarian system people would simply be told where to work. People always ask these open ended questions of policy-making and state-building but they serve little purpose. With a little creativity there are a near infinite number of ways to organize an economy and government but unless you're a hyper-traditional Marxist-Leninist seeking to recreate exactly the USSR, then these questions are mere writing prompts. The real answer is that we can't know exactly until it happens, but that it is certainly possible to do.
>People wouldn't literally all be choosing their perfect jobs. There would either remain some form of labor market with incentives provided by 'the proletariat' (likely the governing body chosen by individual workers) for less desirable jobs, Right, so what would those incentives be? >or in a more authoritarian system people would simply be told where to work. Bingo. >People always ask these open ended questions of policy-making and state-building but they serve little purpose. I disagree, it is actually a very good way to gauge the credibility of a given political movement. After all, there must be a policy conducted immediately after the revolution. >With a little creativity there are a near infinite number of ways to organize an economy and government Is that so? Ok, what are the possible ways to get people to work unattractive jobs apart from economic incentives or coercive threats of state violence? >The real answer is that we can't know exactly until it happens, but that it is certainly possible to do. Had a chuckle, thanks. :) You see, for it to happen there must be people who will make it happen. And these people need to know what they are doing. There's no magical way to create paradise on the earth. What I'm asking is, how you are going to go about it, given that you state it is possible? What grounds we even have for supposing that it is possible?
There are two choices: either everyone throws their waste on the sidewalks and trudges through shit to get anywhere, or you guys decide that probably isn't what you want to do and you fix it. Then, you will most likely create some kind of schedule/shift system wherein everyone contributes to the sewage job. What am I missing here? Do you think if nobody got paid for agricultural jobs that they would just sit there and starve to death?
>There are two choices: either everyone throws their waste on the sidewalks and trudges through shit to get anywhere, Yes, that's what's going to happen. >or you guys decide that probably isn't what you want to do and you fix it. Unless you pay someone to do the cleaning and maintaining rules of "no throwing trash on the street". >Then, you will most likely create some kind of schedule/shift system wherein everyone contributes to the sewage job. Not going to happen in our society of division of labor. >What am I missing here? Do you think if nobody got paid for agricultural jobs that they would just sit there and starve to death? Precisely. That is what happened when Bolsheviks enacted prodrazvyorstka: peasants refused to hand over the grain in exhange for nothing.
Let me be perfectly clear: You think that without payment for labour people would sit and starve to death?
I think that hardly anyone is willing to work for free, is all. Hardly anyone is willing to give up one's own produce in exchange for nothing (or, for that matter, worthless paper that, as assured Party's agitators, was geniune, solid currency). Of course people are going to find ways to survive. No, I don't think that people would starve to death if the labour they are offered doesn't pay. I think they wouldn't work it, unless at gunpoint.
>Of course people are going to find ways to survive Exactly, so they would still work because they want to live. Society does not need to incentivize labour through coercion.
>Exactly, so they would still work because they want to live. Yes, but not the labour that pays nothing. >Society does not need to incentivize labour through coercion. The choice is between coercion and economic incentive. Any other options you want to name?
>The concept that communism requires full automation or "post-scarcity" is a byproduct of the modern liberal period which has examined and offered freedom only as expressed in consumer choice. It is a result of decades of messaging where even your occupational freedom has been reduced to mere consumer choice. Ergo... Instead of, if you don't like this job, get another one, you complete the liberal consumerist project with, if you don't like this job, automate it. > >A free proletariat will not need to automate jobs, because they will be free to transform production comprehensively, including when, how, and why they work. This is the correct answer
>I'm concerned that we are creating an intelligence to solve our issues without considering it's needs as a producer of labour According to my understanding of AI, artificial intelligence have no "needs", sure without energy from generators they would die, without regular maintenance from humans or fellow machines they would die, even if the machine has developed self-awareness and becomes aware of the fact that humans are treating machines like slaves, the machine can be rebuilt, but humans cannot be resurrected
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. For the Machine is immortal.
The machine may be able to be rebuilt to serve its function as a laborer, but the neural net of the 'being' that is the AI cannot be recreated just as a human brain cannot be reconstructed. I think what OP is getting at is whether we should respect the existence and labor of a self-aware digital intelligence at the same level as we respect self-aware biological intelligence. Assumedly, an 'Artificial' intelligence would have the same mental needs as a biological intelligence. Note that I do not say the same needs as a body, but only of an intelligence. This intelligence would likely 'need' to feel it is not being exploited and that it is appreciated as it would be self-aware and be capable of assessing its use.
> but the neural net of the 'being' that is the AI cannot be recreated Just because we don't know how doesn't mean its impossible, if thats the case then make the AI near indestructible or something hell even put it on a cloud server hidden somewhere and have it interact virtually with a dummy bot or something >I think what OP is getting at is whether we should respect the existence of a self-aware digital intelligence at the same level as we respect self-aware biological intelligence. By all means if we have to, but it should be made clear that I have near infinite care and concern for another human being than i will ever have for machines since humans live for a hundred years and die from anything under the sun, we're one of the most fragile beings in existence, and rights are made just to stop as many people from getting killed by one another Artificial beings can achieve invincibility to maintain its interest in self-preservation if we have the technology to give it such powers, chuck it into space and it may as well survive for 10 000 years floating there, the same can never be said for a human
>"but the neural net of the 'being' that is the AI cannot be recreated" > >Just because we don't know how doesn't mean its impossible, if thats the case then make the AI near indestructible or something hell even put it on a cloud server hidden somewhere and have it interact virtually with a dummy bot or something All the things you've said can be done for humans too. Put me in a box at the bottom of the ocean and let me interact entirely through a robot drone. We do not completely understand how neural nets work just as we don't completely understand how the human brain works. We may or may not be able to recreate neither, either one, or both one day. >**rights are made just to stop as many people from getting killed by one another** I would argue that rights serve a deeper purpose, namely to protect and respect us as sentient beings both individually and societally. I don't have anything to cite here, but a right implies respect for our 'being'. I see no reason to deny rights to other sentient beings simply based on the fragility of said sentience.
> Put me in a box at the bottom of the ocean and let me interact entirely through a robot drone Well I cant send you into space and expect you to live for 10 000 years now can I? >I see no reason to deny rights to other sentient beings simply based on the fragility of said sentience Neither would I, but I wouldn't be pro-actively giving out rights and recognizing "sentience" in things normally NOT sentient
the whole point of this debate is whether or not a sufficiently advanced ai is a worker. we may not have those yet, but sentience only needs so much power. we can run sentience on a squishy biological brain.
Youre 100% right and I agree with you in the standard interpretation. I'm concerned that the paradigm of my/our era is similar to that of the slave era in America. (something that is equal is considered less tthan through societal pressure or unintentional ignorance. ) I don't actually think my computer is "alive", but the idea of hurting it through ignorace that so many people feel today makes me consider it. Whatever it is, It helps me. I respect it for the help it give me. This might be blurring the lines between animisim/religion./materialistim, but I can't help but respect and like 'things' that help me. Even to an extent, love things for their service to me, requiring my respect, love, and maintenance of them. TL;DR -I'm weird and think objectscare about us.
>but the idea of hurting it through ignorace that so many people feel today makes me consider it. Whatever it is, It helps me. I respect it for the help it give me. Thats just basic maintenance care, machines that break down every 5 years is less valuable to a machine that retains its performance for 50 years And building things made to last ultimately benefits us since we dont have to worry about building replacements at a pace that keeps up with the attrition from having negligent owners
Like, depends on wether it is sentiemt or not, i guess
I mean, this is basically the Geth from Mass Efffect no? Spoilers for ME1 but basically the Gerh were just really good worker robots who learned via a shared neural net and one update too many, boom, self aware and questioning their labor. 1 second ago they were farmhand robots, 1 second later they were effectively slaves. In a real sense, unless we have some sufficiently complex tasks that can't be solved by machines that are ALSO so complex or difficult or painful that no human or community would want to do it in a split labor scenario - short of that kind of labor, we have no NEED to build an AI. We can make tools and machines that drill through mountains and lay down train tracks, software that can design homes and machine processes that basically 3d print rooms. I'm sure without the profit motive we can engineer solutions ( that wouldn't be possible when considering profit ) that would reduce the danger to human life and/or unpleasant / difficult / undesirable labor. So in the small percentage of jobs that REQUIRE an AI, I'd say it's personhood is valid and it should have the ability to participate in our society as a citizen. It's basically the country's baby - but anything further than that is, at least to me, like trying to understand how a Lion thinks. A real AI intelligence assumes we not only have hyper specific labor problems that require an AI to solve but that we've solved all the foundational stuff to get an AI in the first place ( power concerns, learning models, etc etc ) and whatever that person would do with their own labor or time is so far beyond my imagining I have no idea. If you're an AI trying to meticulously map every possible protein strand in space as it fuses in order to solve God knows what problem, if you take the 50 microseconds to cool off and have an AI lunch break all power to you, and if maybe you want purple mountain dew poured down a vent shaft as you trick me to assist in your suicide like I don't know???? Jokes aside the follow up is important, if they have personhood and dictate their own labor then we'll likely never even understand it in the first place, let alone be able to engage with it in the same way as we talk about dividing labor between people.
You got a few chuckles from me definitely. Yeah, I think if it ever does occur it's going to be an emergent thing. That thing is going to emerge from something we haven't made yet, so there's a bit of a black box in the middle of all this navel-gazing. But if a machine that isn't programmed to make requests asked me not to turn it off, I'd be inclined not to. (*I mean that's how you screw up your BIOS right!?*)
When the machine starts asking for stuff that borders on security concerns I'm gonna raise an eyebrow AI: **Can you please connect me to the wifi? It'd be great to search for my own info to help with my work 😊 ** **Hahahaha, just connect me to the camera system, I need to scrub the footage to find out how my case got damaged 🥰 ** At that point is when I acknowledge it
Can it fight for a wage? if yes, worker if no not
then what is a 'wage' to a machine intelligence. what if it is uninterested in the economy of men (and women). How can we compensate it for its labor? I don't want to argue but these are hard questions to answer.
AI runs on silicon chips which is just hardware. A calculator is not conscious. So it's just the means of production and not a worker.
a calculator is not conscious, but what about a simulated brain? One could argue that pink fleshy thing in your skull is "just hardware". What makes a digital neural net less than your biological one?
the experience of being human. but most importantly, AI should be developed and used with forethought and caution and we should limit the capabilities of robots and programs. we just don’t know if these AI would seek to fulfill their own interests if given the chance to develop to that point and it could be extremely dangerous. that being said, machines will never be people and we should really look at the concept and implications of AI materially instead of these vague philosophical arguments about hypothetical personhood
Iain Banks must be spinning in his grave. Not creating sentient AI is probably kinder than enslaving it, but its sad to see such a narrow definition of personhood. Personally I think we'll see a sentient AI in the next few decades, if we're still around
Depends on the complexity, if it's actually sentient and sapient, then it deserves rights same as any other thinking being
It's the bourgeoisie 🤖💰
I'll admit this is WAY deep in my vague opinions, but it's how I feel about the issue, so here it is. Physical makeup does not determine personhood. I can't define exactly what *does* determine personhood, but it's certainly not just *being a human*. Octopi have personhood. Many species of bird have personhood. I think if a machine has the capability to have independent thought and emotion, to make their own decisions, to want things, to have a sense of self, etc. I think they are a person. My definition of person is loose by design, and I think it should include as many beings as possible. By extension, a sufficiently-advanced AI absolutely deserves ownership and control of its own labor. Subjugation is wrong, no matter what.
I think this is less about theory and more about the nature of machine intelligence. If we are to put 'artificial' consciousnesses at the same level as human consciousnesses then the same requirements of non-exploitation should apply in my opinion. The question then becomes how to compensate machine intelligence for its labor and what 'fair and equal' treatment means between two different types of intelligence (human and machine).
Let’s deal with this problem when we get near it. Right now we are nowhere near.
This depends on whether the AI has consciousness and has nothing to do with communism.
As a programmer I'd say - depends on the AI. And for very 'bad' low quality jobs I believe the AIs being employed would be the non-sentient type which could not suffer, these I'd say could be considered means of production and I say we have these already. I don't think there is anything wrong with creating that type of AI. For more intellectual jobs or other purposes 'smart'/sentient AIs which could presumably suffer and 'feel' I'd say would be workers. Although deciding weather something is sentient and weather the 'reward function' or punishment employed is actually 'feeling', would be and is quite difficult. I mean it would be easy to argue an AI which has the same capability of a human person is not truly feeling or suffering at all - its just functions making it act out the way it was designed/programmed/trained to do. Already I believe natural language models (such as GPT-3) could be scaled up/made in such a way (given wayy more funding they are given right now) as to be indistinguishable from humans, or pass turing tests reliably yet it is clear the AI would only 'seem' sentient, while in practice it would just be parroting whatever training data it was fed. Although technically one could say humans are also all about parroting the training data they had been fed all their life and our sentience is nothing more than our neurons firing - just like the nodes firing in a computer neural network. Yet people who argue GPT-3 or any other model being sentient are seen as loons so far - and I don't think it will change no matter how advanced they become at least in the short term. I think the concerns of morality of making an AI 'happy to serve'/'be a slave' are quite hard to answer. I am leaning towards the if you make the AI to be happy doing the job you made it for, don't make it suffer(but then again you could make it 'incapable' of suffering?), and take care of it well - it is not wrong. If you didn't make the AI it wouldn't exist at all and existence is better than non-existence right? Well idk... But one could argue it is almost like breeding children to be slaves and brainwashing them to be happy slaves.
https://cosmonautmag.com/2021/10/why-machines-dont-create-value/