you never know, homie

[darreneatworld]

here's something that will really get you thinking. it takes about ten minutes, and if you're anything like me, it will make you realise things about yourself that you may not have known existed. please give me your comments on this one!

link: the robot mind survey

Comments

Mel

[anonymous]

Humm. I did it...

I don't know. Seemed constructed in a poor way to me.
Like, such an emphasis on trying to make Peter appear morally flawed.
Flaws and the shit things people do are exactly what gives human life it's rich experience and diversity. So it was a bad trigger for making people think about him in comparison to a robot, if you get me?

Re: Mel

[darreneatworld]

i don't know if it's so much about making him look flawed as much as not giving the robot any emotions or anything that might hint at compassion/feelings/etc.

i'm starting to feel more like the thing that makes life what it is are the motivations behind what we do...the robot could be/probably is programmed to respond in certain ways depending on millions of particular variables, but the human's responses are all spontaneous and triggered by emotions. if you get me.

Re: Mel

[anonymous]

yeah exactly... that's kinda what i was getting at.

Or maybe i'm meam to theoretical robots.

Re: Mel

[oncepure]

Saying that human responses are spontaneous is a big call.

There is no proof that humans are anything but programmed to respond in certain ways depending on millions of particular variables (c.f. emerging behavior from simple systems/chaos/etc).

I think perhaps, at some point in the future, the human-centric view (that we are somehow different from animals or that we are somehow outside of natural law/determinism) will be as antiquated/humorous as the geocentric view is these days.

Re: Mel

[darreneatworld]

did you do the test? what did you think?

and yeah 'freedom evolves' is all about that kinda thing (ie determinism).

Re: Mel

[oncepure]

I had trouble with it, to tell you the truth. I understood what I was supposed to do/answer (feeling that the robot was in some ways "better" than the human because of his actions, yet empathy for the human vying with this) but I had difficulty feeling this way. I felt that both entities showed aspects of "humanity" so I had to basically treat it as if both were human and judge them on their merits. Thus I felt the robot was more worthy of life, in general.

I also thought that information was a little sketchy about how things actually worked in their fictional universe? For example, can the robot feel pain? If so then I would torture the human. If not I would torture the robot.

The whole thing seemed a little set up to get the answers that they wanted. I felt a little like I was being led. I think when it comes down to it the survey was really about people giving humans special status, that is even if the robot has better qualities and is generally a better member of society, people still associate themselves with the human subject.

Re: Mel

[themorninghate]

I thought it was bullshit. Sorry.

Like I said about it previously, the only thing I discovered from it was that I know find it hard to take harvard people seriously.

Re: Mel

[darreneatworld]

what's 'bullshit' about it? it's just trying to find out what people think about the idea of AI. they're not trying to 'trap' you.

believe it or not, their research is actually honest and decent and overshadows whatever ideas you might have about how pretentious they're being.