[Callan S.]

I'm not sure I understand the full extent of the crow example - it seemed his tasks were in a different configuration that usual.

The full depth of the task involves how much he learnt each part piecemeal and how much they were spoon fed to him.

I have seen a video of a parrot that seemed to be able to make some free association (rather than repeating from wrote learning) of previously learnt rules, so I'm not shooting it down.

It's just the extent of the matter is ambiguous to me.

[Madness]

I'm not sure I understand the full extent of the crow example - it seemed his tasks were in a different configuration that usual.

The full depth of the task involves how much he learnt each part piecemeal and how much they were spoon fed to him.e.

This. That was the main point of the research as far as I recall - the task difficulty is inherently harder and represents/demonstrates a more complex learning than we previously assumed possible of crows.

[Kellais]

For animals, no, atleast not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people. We don't currently. It's like trying to attach a failing mechanism onto even more workload that it fails to do the work on.

Care to elaborate? Just because some people do not get everything they'd be intitled to does not mean we do not grant them the status. It's a problem of control and of being able to claim your rights. That's different.

As for AI, I call it different, as they are our children.

And like a child who puts their parents into a home eventually, you want to treat them good so they treat you good, eventually.

Interesting ... i still have a hard time of thinking of a computer as a child of mine (or whoever built it).

So i guess in my view, i think animals should come before anything electronical.

Another problem i see is that deciding which animals should be granted the status is not without problems. Why? We do not have means to perceive what each animal is capable of feeling and thinking. So how is it we get to decide which animals get the status and which do not. I think it is presumptuous if we do.

[Royce]

I've read so many versions of this over the years, Royce. There seems to be some confused mixing between cultural transmission, increasingly complex but still mundane, collective consciousness studies, and what's often referred to in a wider set of literature as "peak experiences," among other things (though, of course, these and whole sets of conceptions intertwine as they affect change).

Yes, and I think we have a long way to go in actual understanding of (other) animals intelligence and behavior. So much oddity and weird connections out there.

Another problem i see is that deciding which animals should be granted the status is not without problems. Why? We do not have means to perceive what each animal is capable of feeling and thinking. So how is it we get to decide which animals get the status and which do not. I think it is presumptuous if we do.

I agree. The whole premiss is pretty arrogant but very human:) "We are on top of the pyramid, let us look down and decide......." We are the strangest of all animals.

[Royce]

I am not even sure that "personhood" even works on other animals than humans. If I remember correctly, persona means mask, or acting in a sense. Your "personality" is an act you play out every day, which differs from situation to situation. Other animals do not act in the sense that we do, unless we teach/force them. Maybe I do not understand this correctly, but it seems rather absurd to me.

[Srancy]

Are animals eligible for conscription?

[Royce]

Are animals eligible for conscription?

Yes. You would have to be a certain type of ape though. The kind that take orders and shoot on sight

[Callan S.]

For animals, no, atleast not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people. We don't currently. It's like trying to attach a failing mechanism onto even more workload that it fails to do the work on.

Care to elaborate? Just because some people do not get everything they'd be intitled to does not mean we do not grant them the status.

Why doesn't it mean you don't grant them the status?

Does it mean you don't want to grant them the status - no, I wouldn't say that. You want to.

Does it mean you DO grant them the status?

When you say you've granted someone the status of not starving and...they starve, why do you say that doesn't mean you haven't granted them the status?

I'm almost wondering if you're going to say that it's just the moral imperative to grant them the status - forfilling the status is just a secondary thing.

Fuck morals, in that case.

As for AI, I call it different, as they are our children.

And like a child who puts their parents into a home eventually, you want to treat them good so they treat you good, eventually.

Interesting ... i still have a hard time of thinking of a computer as a child of mine (or whoever built it).

Then ensure you don't build any. Anti-AI-natalism all the way.

But dear god man, what do you think will happen if you go and support a build and such a thing can out think you, yet you raise it like less than an animal? Do you think it's going to see you as more than an animal, let alone a man, in such a case?

So i guess in my view, i think animals should come before anything electronical.

So sayeth the impulses of your brain.

[Callan S.]

Are animals eligible for conscription?

Various animals have been used in war, yes. On pretty much a conscription basis.

[Kellais]

Why doesn't it mean you don't grant them the status?

Does it mean you don't want to grant them the status - no, I wouldn't say that. You want to.

Does it mean you DO grant them the status?

When you say you've granted someone the status of not starving and...they starve, why do you say that doesn't mean you haven't granted them the status?

I'm almost wondering if you're going to say that it's just the moral imperative to grant them the status - forfilling the status is just a secondary thing.

Fuck morals, in that case.

You know, instead of shooting out all those questions you could have answered my question. So how about you elaborate on your opening post?
Oh and if you want to quote me, please quote all of the statment and don't rip them out of context. The last part of my sentence was the most important one.

Then ensure you don't build any. Anti-AI-natalism all the way.

But dear god man, what do you think will happen if you go and support a build and such a thing can out think you, yet you raise it like less than an animal? Do you think it's going to see you as more than an animal, let alone a man, in such a case?

I do not intend to build one, don't worry. But as to your second paragraph...who knows? I mean even if you treat it like a child (or less than an animal) there are no guarantees it will treat you the same way. So i guess the danger of this AI thinking that i am less than an animal myself are there anyway. Especially if the AI only has our capabilities of thinking and deduction and none of our feelings and morals.

So i guess in my view, i think animals should come before anything electronical.

So sayeth the impulses of your brain.

And how is that different from what your brain sayeth? I'm not sure if you are trying to employ a rhetoric here or if you are sitting on your high horse. So i guess i will give you the benefit of the doubt. But be that as it may....your post did not at all promote a discussion here...so i hope you'll be more constructive the next time. I gave my opinion in a thread...convince me why it is wrong or elaborate on yours. Just snipping at mine is not only uncool, it is not helpful at all.
If i got you totally wrong, i apologize, but at the moment, i do not see how this was constructive.

[Madness]

I mean even if you treat it like a child (or less than an animal) there are no guarantees it will treat you the same way. So i guess the danger of this AI thinking that i am less than an animal myself are there anyway.

One of the greatest dangers is assuming that non-human intelligence should be recognizable like human intelligence...

[Callan S.]

Why doesn't it mean you don't grant them the status?

Does it mean you don't want to grant them the status - no, I wouldn't say that. You want to.

Does it mean you DO grant them the status?

When you say you've granted someone the status of not starving and...they starve, why do you say that doesn't mean you haven't granted them the status?

I'm almost wondering if you're going to say that it's just the moral imperative to grant them the status - forfilling the status is just a secondary thing.

Fuck morals, in that case.

You know, instead of shooting out all those questions you could have answered my question.

It wasn't a question on any particular matter - you said 'care to elaborate?' Either A: If I didn't do so before, why would I do it now? Because I like the sound of my own voice? or B: If you're having trouble understanding what I've said, I have no idea what you're not understanding when you just say 'care to elaborate', so I asked questions. Which you could have answered yourself and then told me I could have answered your question, but you didn't.

This seems to be rapidly heading into 'shut them down by any means possible' territory rather than 'shut them down by locating flaws in their reasoning'

Oh and if you want to quote me, please quote all of the statment and don't rip them out of context. The last part of my sentence was the most important one.

The way I read that part, it was 'Hey, they have rights - it's just up to them to provide them for themselves and yeah they don't have the control for that'.

My reading of it was so antithical to what you were saying I ommited it in order to give you a clean slate to describe what you're talking about. I ommited the part that seemed to utterly shoot you down, to give you a second chance because I humoured the idea that my negative reading could be wrong and you might have a better interpretation to give. From my position I was helping you out by cutting it out.

Then ensure you don't build any. Anti-AI-natalism all the way.

But dear god man, what do you think will happen if you go and support a build and such a thing can out think you, yet you raise it like less than an animal? Do you think it's going to see you as more than an animal, let alone a man, in such a case?

I do not intend to build one, don't worry. But as to your second paragraph...who knows? I mean even if you treat it like a child (or less than an animal) there are no guarantees it will treat you the same way. So i guess the danger of this AI thinking that i am less than an animal myself are there anyway.

Beat the slave because hey, even if you didn't beat them, they might still go on to hate you anyway?

There's this thing with humans - it's almost a sunk cost thing, where once they've done something shit, its in for a penny then you're in for a pound. Akka sums it up nicely when he kills that group of soldiers who might have given them away in TJE, when he says 'I'm damned anyway'.

So i guess in my view, i think animals should come before anything electronical.

So sayeth the impulses of your brain.

And how is that different from what your brain sayeth? I'm not sure if you are trying to employ a rhetoric here or if you are sitting on your high horse. So i guess i will give you the benefit of the doubt. But be that as it may....your post did not at all promote a discussion here...so i hope you'll be more constructive the next time. I gave my opinion in a thread...convince me why it is wrong or elaborate on yours. Just snipping at mine is not only uncool, it is not helpful at all.
If i got you totally wrong, i apologize, but at the moment, i do not see how this was constructive.

You already associate 'impulse' in this context with 'electrical impulse'. You already know electrical impulses happen in your brain. Your electronical brain.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I take this missing what is a clear association to mean that I am not being read charitably.

I considered spelling it out and saying 'electrical impulses', but I considered you a fine enough sparing opponent to not need things simplified for you like that. That you were quite capable of drawing the connection yourself. And I still think you are. I think what you are missing is charity in your reading.

[Callan S.]

I mean even if you treat it like a child (or less than an animal) there are no guarantees it will treat you the same way. So i guess the danger of this AI thinking that i am less than an animal myself are there anyway.

One of the greatest dangers is assuming that non-human intelligence should be recognizable like human intelligence...

I think, like we ripped off the shape of birds wings to make planes, well rip off the human model of thinking for AI.

The thing is the human model, rather like how DNA keeps all sorts of capabilities hidden in it, the human mind keeps lots of...lets call them 'lessons' from history. These are unlikely to be added to an AI (mostly because we are largely unaware of all the lessons burnt into us) and so the AI starts with a relatively clean slate. Which can go well - but if it's built on the human model, it can go incredibly wrong.

[Kellais]

Callan, i guess we both read some things wrong. I certainly know that you misinterpreted some of what i wanted to say. I guess it is possible that this is due to english not being my mothertongue. I certainly wasn't trying to read you uncharitably, but your answers seemed kind of evading. Anyway. I'm not sure how to proceed as i don't know if indeed i do read your posts too harshly. Because to be honest, your last post seemed very "holier than thou" on a first read through. But then again, i could misrepresent you. Before this gets into a vicious cicle, i guess i bow out.
As a last line - what i wanted you to elaborate about was the following

not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people.

To whom do we not grant the status of a person? What people do we exclude, in your opinion?

Oh and just FYI - and this is not intended as an attack on you, just to explain why i might read you uncharitably - saying stuff like "dnd forum is the kiddie table" and such like makes you come across as a tad arrogant. That's why i thought you'd need to come down of your high horse.

And now i am done. If i in any way offended you, i apologize.

@ Madness - I agree with your statment. Obviously.

[Callan S.]

To whom do we not grant the status of a person? What people do we exclude, in your opinion?

Nothing comes to mind?

Kids dying of hunger in ethopia and other countries? Asia's sex slaves (and sex slaves in various other countries, including our own), the homeless who don't want to be homeless. Wage slaves.

The list goes on - I'm sure I'll forget some because I forget to assign them human status myself.

Wasn't it predictable I'd say something like that?

Hoping you wont ask why I think we don't include them as as human, even as you wouldn't let your siblings starve to death or be raped for profit (ie, the way you treat your siblings as human).

saying stuff like "dnd forum is the kiddie table" and such like makes you come across as a tad arrogant.

It was 'kiddie pool'

That you don't consider that the level of critical thinking there could indeed, by various emperic metrics, be a kind of kiddie pool...doesn't that make you sound just as arrogant as you don't consider you could be wrong on the matter and actually I'm just saying what is true?

I'm betting the critical thinking level of those forums would be fairly low. But I could be wrong. I didn't say I spoke about what I bet on - but who speaks with anything more than what they just bet upon?