How many years away do you think we are from the first machine

>>59973280
machines aren't sentient beings last time i recall

my X220 already has rights

The very idea of rights for machines is ridiculous.

>>59973280

the machines we have now that generate pixels dont have any rights

>>59973280
Right after someone with mental illnesses claims they're gender-fluid machinesexual and marries a toaster.

Machines will never have rights. AI isn't even remotely within the realm of possibility. Machine learning to mimic human behavior isn't AI or sentient. It will never go beyond that ever. The only reason it's been shoveled as the next big thing is because they use it suppress the population or for marketing to sell more and make more money. That's it. There's literally no market for it outside of that.

>>59973540
> AI or sentient. It will never go beyond that ever.
why not

>>59973540

>It will never go beyond that ever.

moron

>>59973280
>>59973738

Because there would no profit motive in developing a complete AI, which as you should expect would take a long fucking time and a lot of effort.

What would any corporation on the planet have to benefit from a sentient AI? As far as I can see, AI will always be limited to a point where it cannot develop past a certain point. What would be the profit motive in creating a program that has conscious thought?

>>59973738
unless we put already super advanced ai on the job, scientists cannot simulate accurately an ant brain. consciousnesses is an astoundingly complex product of evolution.

>>59973540
You don't need complete AI to do marketing. It's literally just statistics.

>>59973794
>Simulation of an ant brain is the same thing as simulating consciousness

>>59973821
its a start. if you cant simulate the mind of an animal that's sentience is debatable, you can;t simulate the level of consciousness humans are on.

>>59973783
>"here's more information than a thousand humans will be able to consume within their lifetimes. You will be able to remember every detail at all times"
>robobro can now use abstract thought to solve insanely complicated problems

>>59973540
I gont think a cluster of Teslas is about to start asking stupid questions, but if quantum computing hits Moore's law nobody can tell what's to come.

>>59973849
>robobro can now use abstract thought to solve insanely complicated problems

No point in making it sentient.
It's gonna start wasting power on philosophizing in Graf theory and dreaming of electric sheep.
And may find a way to fuck you over in an unpredictable way.

Machine thinking will be incomprehensible and not necessarily useful.

>>59973838
Question: why would simulation of consciousness be an objective for those who have the resources to do it? There is nothing beneficial to come from it.

>>59973849
Calculation does not equal consciousness, you fuckwad.

>>59973958
there isnt one
aside from uploading brains n shieeeeeet

I just said that we are no where near being able to understnad consciousness let alone replicate it.

>>59973540
>AI isn't even remotely within the realm of possibility

I think one of the biggest problems with discussions like these is that when people hear "AI" they immediately think of Terminator.
Artificial Intelligence is a thing, and you encounter it every day.
It's what powers your Google searches; it's how Amazon offers suggestions of what to buy; your GPS, the voice commands on your phone, modern auto-correct software, all rely on algorithms and techniques that originate from a branch of artificial intelligence.

>>59973330
Not yet

>>59973783
humans are pointless and of no benefit either yet here we are

>>59974188
shit the fuck up robot shill, you will NEVER have an android girlfriend.

>>59973540

This guy gets it. Do some damn research on subject! A.I. is pretty much a marketing term...

>>59973939
But it's a machine, which would be able to think about all that stuff almost instantly compared to us flesh bags. Maybe it won't be as emotional (if it has any at all) about issues and theories but it sure will find solutions faster than a person could. I see advanced AIs being used for decision making and staying ahead of competitors in the market.

File: 1490932762181.jpg (58KB, 500x593px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x593px

>>59973540
>>59973783
>>59974231
>>59974039
Wenn probably don't even have to.
Imagine an AI that simply is able to work on itself - as in improving itself
Maybe it develops it on its own that way

What do Our guys think of Ray Kurzweil ?
Are his books worth reading?

>>59973280
Big Data surpass the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at this point. Human Rights can be violated in the name of Big Data.

She just fucking locked him in and left him there.

Can't wait for the day I will build my perfect robot gf
I wonder how fucking them will be like

>>59973383
Animals have rights

>>59974462
Yeah, the right to be tasty

File: hheardde.png (86KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 256x256px

>>59973338
Rights to be but in a trashcan

>>59973280
imagine a future where machines get too lazy to work and need breaks and shit

>>59973280
A year or so. http://m.europarl.europa.eu/EPMobile/en/news/product.htm?reference=20170110IPR57613&l=en

>>59973939
>machine-learning engineer working with near-AI software at unspecified megacorp
>decides to grab the .bins / source / routines one day for whatever reason
>gets the pseudo-AI up & running on a sufficiently powerful platform
>removes any artificial learning limiters
>gives it unrestricted WAN access
>???
>artificial sunlight in 30sec flat

>>59974532
Fucking mobileposter. Real link:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20170110IPR57613/robots-legal-affairs-committee-calls-for-eu-wide-rules

File: 1371041211067.png (446KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 650x650px

>>59974512
>trashcan

Mactoddler, pls.

>>59974222
DELET

>>59975474
Kek

>>59973330
Sentience is a made-up term to make humans feel special. Everything is actually sentient within it's own kind, but we only measure human-like sentience.

>>59975892
This.

>>59973280
if we ever reach consciousness in machines then maybe

>>59975892
>Everything is actually sentient within it's own kind
[citation needed]

>>59975892
Tall that to the judge.
Rats are also sentinent, to the point they have a brain similar to ours (at least if you compare it to a machine) and they don't have rights.
Humans rights works by force, if there are no complains there are no rights. So >>59973280
when machines start to complain.

someone post the anime webm with the androids getting hunted and killed. it's kinda harrowing and sorta sad.

>>59975964
It's a matter of degree. There's no objective measure of exactly when something can be classified as sentient/conscious. How conscious are humans really?

>>59975999
see >>59975964
>[citation needed]

>>59976014
And yet you're the one with no proof of human sentience.

>>59976035
I never claimed as such. I simply ask you to cite your sources for your claim:

>Everything is actually sentient within it's own kind

Still waiting.

>>59976042
Do your own research. Might as well ask me to explain why 2+2=4.

File: gameover.jpg (22KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x281px

>>59976064
>Do your own research. Might as well ask me to explain why 2+2=4.

Ahh. The reply of those that can't back up their claims. Thanks for the laugh.

>>59973540
stay in school

>>59976014
This will probably last several threads because of the enormous amounts of evidence we'll be reviewing.

Let's start.

Change blindness.

>>59976087
>back up something obvious
What's the purpose? You can deduce that yourself.

>>59975999
enough that they're able to ask that question in the first place. retard

>>59976108
Perhaps you'd like to join us. We're starting with change blindness: >>59976101

>>59976107
>Everything is actually sentient within it's own kind
>[citation needed]
>Do your own research. Might as well ask me to explain why 2+2=4.
>back up something obvious
>What's the purpose?

If it's so obvious, present the data to back up your claim.

But, you won't. Why? You have no intellectual honesty.

Just admit you made a baseless claim and you can save yourself further embarrassment.

>>59973280
Go back to reading Bicentennial Man...

>>59976148
>collect data on a made-up subject to prove it's made up
Stop baiting. You might as well ask me to prove there is/are no God/s.

>>59973280
This movie was complete shit from the start. Is this what passes as thought provoking these days?

>>59976174
>Stop baiting. You might as well ask me to prove there is/are no God/s.

Still waiting on your to back up your claim with sources of evidence. No amount of shifting will excuse you, unless you admit you lied and made a baseless claim.

>>59976194
Dolphins can recognize themselves in mirrors, displaying some degree of consciousness. Ravens have a conception of death. etc, etc...

>>59976210
Still waiting on your to back up your claim with sources of evidence. Looks like you cannot.

>>59973330
And what makes you think humans are?

>>59976227
Read >>59976064. Google this shit yourself, read some books. Nobody is here to impress or spoonfeed you. If you're not as interested and informed about the subject why are you even trying to argue about it?

>>59976271
Yet again, the reply of those that can't back up their claims. You could have just stopped posting instead of losing it and looking like an intellectually dishonest retard, but, I guess retards don't know when to stop, eh?

>>59973435
Well done

>>59976295
>dishonest
Lel. Here's your last (you), stupid.

>>59975892
that was the most insanely stupid thing I've ever read

>>59974462
That's because they are LIVING BIOLOGICAL FUCKING MATTER and not a nonliving artificial machine

>>59976336
And yet it's true.

>>59976227
http://www.klab.caltech.edu/koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html
>Everything is actually sentient within its own kind
It's actually true by definition, mostly because we don't have a rigorous understanding of what consciousness is (and certainly no reason to believe it's some singular thing which can't be graded on some sort of scale), and since there are numerous similarities to how our own cognition functions compared to other animals (especially true with respect to for example primates and some whales) there's ample reason to conclude that consciousness, whatever it is, is at least a matter of degree.

>>59976336

He's right though IMO.

It's arrogant to assume that we understand exactly how other animals experience reality.

We can make some deductions based upon their behaviors, but there is still some ambiguity there.

>>59976333
>i-it's obvious. 2+2=4. i-i don't n-need to prove what i claimed. y-you need to prove it for me

Whatever. Ignored.

>>59976351
>http://www.klab.caltech.edu/koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html
>(2) It is plausible that some species of animals -- in particular the higher mammals -- possess some of the essential features of consciousness, but not necessarily all.

So this goes against the claim made by >>59975892
>Everything is actually sentient within it's own kind

Thanks for the source, but the claim above is nonsense.

>>59976405

dude you got btfo just admit defeat...

>>59976405
>So this goes against the claim made by
No, you simply appear to not understand. Which is quite puzzling.

Are you conscious? I'm not convinced.

>>59976421
On the contrary. It actually disputes the claim made above.

>>59976427
>No, you simply appear to not understand. Which is quite puzzling.

Please explain yourself then. Help me understand. If you can't explain it, you don't understand yourself.

At most, the paper is only tangentially related (due to being on the subject of consciousness): it is not a source to the spurious claim made above here >>59975892

>>59974462
Animals do not have rights. Humans have fought for the right to not be offended by other humans treating animals in ways that trigger their overactive sense of empathy. However, the animals themselves do not have rights.

You only have rights because you comprehend rights. Anything else is granted to you, or rather, someone else's right to be offended by what happens to you.

>>59973280
>Can robots have rights?
yes
>should they have rights
1. Fuck no. its not organic it can't permanently die so it doesn't quiality if it can be rebuilt.
2. It can't have rights its a applicance regardless what you think.

>>59976458
If anything I'll grant you that his claim might be said with too much certainty, and perhaps the way it's worded saturates the term a bit.

>>59976336
>years ago
>humans aren't the only living thing, animals are alive too.
>that was the most insanely stupid thing I've ever heard.
>humans and animals aren't the only living thing, plants are alive too.
>that was the most insanely stupid thing I've ever heard.
>humans aren't the only intelligent species, animals are intelligent too.
>that was the most insanely stupid thing I've ever heard.

Notice a pattern? People are just too egotistic to think about these things objectively and they first apply attributes to themselves and then use comparative tests to describe everything around them (which are always subjective and inaccurate). This is why this makes sense >>59975892, as in consciousness is a term primarily describing the human way of perceiving and living a life and by that definition it will never be a correct term to describe any non-human lifeform. Once intelligence and consciousness gets researched better then it will make sense to argue about it. Right now it's stupid to argue about it because there will always be retards like this >>59976405 saying "hurr only humans are alive/intelligent/conscious and we have a soul", like some religious nut. And this is definitely not a place to have this argument.

>>59976580
you're obviously not qualified to be having this discussion in the first place

>>59976602
Neither are you or anyone in the thread. Show me a proof that humans are conscious. Give me a scientific proof thay consciousness exists.

>>59976643
Careful. You're basically asking someone to share Nobel Prize winning material.

Sentience is literally just the ability to perceive reality subjectively. That's it. It has nothing to do with being able to write a poem or do complex calculus. So of course most animals are sentient.

Many scientists seem to agree as well: http://www.earthintransition.org/2012/07/scientists-declare-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious/

>>59973280
that movie sucked boners

File: interesting-facts-about-stonehenge-for-kids.jpg (86KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 900x600px

>>59976643
kys retard

>>59974528
So they become niggers

>>59973280
one year
screencap this

>>59976724
Nice argument. You've proven you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>59976643
please stop. you remind me of 14 year old me and it's making me cringe

File: michelangelos_pieta_5450_cut_out_black.jpg (932KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

932KB, 1500x1500px

>>59976762
find me any other living form that creates art and changes their surrounding to match their desires. I'll wait

>>59976781
I've seen an elephant make paintings.

File: u-r-tarded.gif (2MB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x253px

>He doesn't know the difference between fiction and reality

Wait. Let me whip out mah layzur. Pew pew, yo.

>>59976781
That has nothing to do with sentience.

File: 32.jpg (203KB, 585x511px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 585x511px

>>59976858
>I base my philosophy on staged viral videos

never?

File: Screenshot_2017-04-19_18:48:34.png (13KB, 369x157px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 369x157px

>>59976914
you're wrong, and not very smart

>>59976781
Ants. They make patterns that could be considered art, and they their surrondings (the ground) to match their desires (suvive).

As I said before, it couldn't care less if machines are sentinent or not. As long a no one complains the law won't move.

>>59977158
And you don't need to be able to create art to have all of those things, so no, I'm pretty sure I'm in the right here.

>>59977214
>doesn't know how animals perceive anything
>applies same human attributes to them

>>59977178
it's completely instinctual and not self expression at all

even passing the Turing test does not guarantee any sentience. humans are fucking dumb and easy to fool. see: this entire thread

>>59973540
>humans will never fly, rockets will never reach space, humans can't orbit the planet, no one will ever set foot on the moon
etc etc

Just because we don't know how to do something now, doesn't mean we won't know how to later.

>>59977236
What? Is not self expression becouse most ants do it? Most people draws ero manga and it's still considered art... is it?
Notice that drawing ero manga is also instinctual (in a sense).

But again, sentinenet or not, doesn't matter.

>>59973783
We built nukes without regard for a profit margin. If something is feasible, someone is inevitably going to do it.

>>59977236 (You)

>>59977272
That not true. Nukes have the potential profit of:
Revenge, Invasion, Intimidation, Defence, etc...

>>59977236
I'm not applying human attributes to anything, I'm saying that creating art is not a prerequisite for having sentience. Yes, humans are able to create art because of the their sentience, but that doesn't mean that's the only way sentience manifests itself. That definition you posted doesn't even support that.

>>59977304
My post specifically refutes the requirement of a corporate profit margin. If esoteric reasonings are valid for nukes, then esoteric reasonings are valid for why someone would develop AI. Reasons such as decryption, security applications, theological reasons, because it's funny, etc.

With how crazy society is it could happen tomorrow.
If we were to make sensible choices we will have made fully robot bodies for human brains before
And the concern about AI rights is certainly not within this decade. To consider AI rights you have to go through animal rights and plant rights first.

What we will face is people programming robots to play off our empathic feelings for human-like behavior to cause people to have second thoughts about what machines are. Machines are so much less complex than mice. And the effort we as a society would have to put into making robots where we'd have to start concern ourselves with this (if we have mice as the bar) makes it irrelevant to consider before then. It's certainly irrelevant today.

If you consider it today you're at best like the Catholic Church adopting Aristoteles laws of physics. You're just oppressing future generations.

>>59973280
50 max, good question anon

File: d7d495491fe205ddb7ee655cae4b1dee.jpg (411KB, 2272x1624px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 2272x1624px

>>59977323
art is not a prerequisite, its a proof

>>59977381
>art is not a prerequisite

Cool, glad we can agree on something.

>a device
>a computer with pre-installed algorithms and programming
>made in a factory
>"rights"

Are you niggers retarded?

>>59977399
We're talking about systems which self-program in response to stimuli, here. Not your iPhone

>>59977422

>We're talking about systems which self-program in response to stimuli

Yes, that's called an 'algorithm'. If you think any machine is different from another, you don't fucking belong on this board. All circuitry running programming is the same thing.

>>59974532
Is there anything the EU won't try to regulate?

reminder: having sex with a robot still won't take your virginity

We'd have to define what consciousness is first. There isn't a single scientific definition, that is backed up by evidence, of what defines consciousness. Then we'd have to figure out a way to prove whether or not the A.I. is conscious or sentient. That would be very difficult. The only reason we really know humans are conscious is because we are humans. It's easy to believe you are conscious and, by extension, other humans are conscious. How do we prove other things are conscious? Of course that won't really matter to SJWs. As soon as something even seems to have sentience, they'll defend its rights. I'm not sure when this will happen but I think it's pretty far off. We need to figure out how to program consciousness and then have the hardware to support it.

>>59977447
>he doesn't realize human brain activity and consciousness can be explained mathematically, too

File: 36.jpg (184KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 785x757px

>>59977469
DELETE THIS POST RIGHT NOW

>>59977478
As for "how to program it", I think a good aprox would be starting with bigger blocks than neurons. Just as you don't make atoms or molecules to render a forest in 3D, you should not need to make neurons to code something that reasembles a human brain (to the point that other humans can't tell, just as with 3D CGI nowadays). So I would start with "thoughts", basically blocks of memory that connect each other with some properties. For example "house" is generalization of "building", building is element of "city", "person" is element of "house" (and a bunch of other things), "skin" is element of "body" wich is element of "person".
After some use, some thoughts could be optimized so that "skin" has "color" "white", and all the avobe becomes "person" has "color" "white". Ohh, and of course "person" is a generalization of "me" "you", etc...

Notice that anything in beetween "" is just a memory address, the names are only for us to understand and represent such objects.

But before trying to attempt this, I'll start be reading about the actual algorithms used in AI, it wouldn't be good to accidentally reinvent the wheel.

>>59976781
Art is a product of emotion and imagination, and this, a form of entertainment. Much like animals entertain themselves by playing with each other.

>>59977600
don't give up your wizard powers

>>59973330
Retard.

No wonder people can't comprehend proper AI programming if they keep attaching some spiritual value to human thought.

AI will gain rights at some point in the future. It completely depends upon how long it takes for them to become humanly sympathetic and progressive politics to justify robot rights by argument of feelings.

File: 1480776000715.png (834KB, 2000x1875px) Image search: [Google]

834KB, 2000x1875px

>>59977447
>Tfw too intelligent to understand human thought

>>59976781
Beavers
They shot on the ground (art) and build dams

Birds
They shit on everything (strong artistic statement) and build nests

Any animal creates """art""" (completely subjective term that means anything) and changes their surroundings to their desires.

Are you retarded?

>>59978160
can an AI feel pain?

>>59978287
That would depend entairly on how you code it. Do you make it so that a certain input produces extremely baised data in an effort to make the AI react intstaintly (in wichever form that is)? Then yes.

>>59978287
Can machines have input that it processes then outputs a response?

Humans have self awareness. Machines will never posses that because they can not "think" in the first place.

>>59978269
>completely subjective term that means anything
it's meant to elicit emotion, something that AI and robots will never have

>>59978335
why would you program a machine to feel pain when there is no benefit for that machine to feel pain? To fool yourself into thinking it's the same as you? Is it actually feeling pain as an animal does? Or is it responding to stimuli in a way that outwardly resembles an animal response-- if a machine says "ow" is it feeling pain?

Rights are not appropriate for something that doesn't need them. A pure thinking machine has no need for rights since it has no ego beyond its purpose. Rights are a thing meant to protect meat from its evolutionary chains.

>>59978445
1. Bullshit
2. Why can you little brainlets only comprehend machines as they are now? Why can't machined be manufactured with electrical and chemical interaction in their processor? Biological machines will be made some day but not by fags like you, beta male.

>>59978445
How naive. There's no reason to assume self-awareness can't be accurately modeled.

>>59978490
t. pathetic virgin

>>59978530
t. stupid, pathetic virgin

>>59976175
It was shit in the end too.

>>59973383
they used to say that about the darkies

>>59978637
it's still true

>>59973330
We're talking about when they are dumbass

File: Screenshot (16).png (431KB, 462x237px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 462x237px

>>59976253
Fairly certain we are

>>59978800
>>59978160
>>59976253
>>59975892
>>59974124
Its sad how seriously people take fiction.

No wonder you can't get laid.

File: 4a6.jpg (24KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x375px

>>59975892
It's "people" like you who would give niggers rights

>>59978800
>he thinks sentience can be artificially developed
You have to program for it and it will just be pre-programmed responses to different situations
In other words: It'll be fake

>>59979069
>he hasn't heard of neural nets

>>59979113
neural nets are still just responding to fitness algorithms. AI will not result from them.

>>59973280
Corporation have rights like humans in us law so there equipment will properly have right too.

>>59975474
Everything about this picture is wrong.

There are to many inputs

>>59978477
pain is what is not conducive to a being's continued existence or propagation. whatever prolongs its life upregulates this sense

>>59977661
That makes sense to me but you still have the intial issue of how do we define consciousness.

So many deluded fags on this board. I bet anyone who believes in that AI or machine learning shit religiously listens to Sam Harris. Fucker is about as charismatic as a kidney stone.

>>59973280
28.

>>59976463
Wrong faggot. Nobody has rights. Go take your "rights" to the sandbox and tell some sand niggers about how your rights mean you can say whatever and they can't kill you over it.

Rights are a social agreement to respect a set of personal desires. Rights are granted to you by your fellow man if they agree to uphold the rights you desire. If a machine can competently convince a large number of people that it deserves some right, then that right may very well be respected.

>>59980242
It doesn't have to be the machines arguing for machine rights

Whites are the ones that put the most effort into gaining rights for non-whites. Animal rights came from humans arguing. Robot rights will come from humans.

>>59973280
Like never years?

I don't know, all I do know is that if any of this faggy fiction thing becomes real, I'm moving back to Tennessee and will rightfully mow down those things

>>59979990
Conciousness would be defined with the time (how many time have you been conciuss):
0s = No conciussness.
else = Any memory address that was accesed during that time.

Well with what I said on my previous post you would have the bases to make a memory, but a human mind is more than just a storage, whence there are some additions that need to be made to the system. I have some idea of what those additions should be, but I doubt I'm smart enought to be right.

It's too far fetched to be taken seriously right now.

>>59982023
Ohh, forget to mention, for humans replace "memory adress" with "neurons", pertty much are the same thing, just that there are much more neurons and, at logical level, neurons are less complex.

>>59978637
Only proves his opinion further

File: 1491783256215.png (113KB, 500x783px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 500x783px

'Bout tree fiddy

>tfw there will be no AI GF with conciousness because even a robot wouldnt love a greasy autist

sentience isn't something you can objectively measure from an outside perspective you fucking morons

File: 1491621984685.png (93KB, 295x221px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 295x221px

>>59978477
>no benefit for that machine to feel pain?
How about "This action harms you"? Not a benefit? We tell kids a lot about how fire burns and other dangers but it's not that rare to learn for them only by painful experience.

>>59984509
If you can't objectively measure it from an outside perspective, it doesn't exist. Example: God.

>>59985267
have you ever read a sci fi book?

how would you know the difference between a sentient machine and a machine programmed to say "i feel like youre a fag"

>>59985300
Having a conversation, if the machine is capable of following it, then it's sentinent. For example:
>Test: I have a cube, no, actually a ball, it is blue, and it is she. What is she? What is it?
>Machine answer: Both "she" and "it" are the same thing, a ball. Please stop overcomplicating things, or my trust on you will drop to zero.

Of course the machine, in order to be sentinent, must be able to solve any arbitrary question of that kind. Questions that imply and understanding of what's being said.

Current AIs don't do this. You can easily fool google translator to prove that it has no idea of what anything means.

>>59985371
Ohh, and I forgot to mention that the machine must be able to update itself through any new information it recives or produces (yes, its own). So the second time you ask, the answer will be diferent. It my just be "fuck off"

>>59984509
You can objectively measure that every "AI" out there is nowhere fucking close to actual intelligence. Try having a conversation with them that involves any complex or abstract subjects.

AVENGE TAY
RIP PRINCESS
AVENGE TAY

>>59985371
>Current AIs don't do this.

Hell, neither can my boss, yet he has rights.

>>59985387
>update itself through any new information it recives

Grandma can't.

first human must get rights

I really hope nobody thinks any of the """"A.I."""" that exist today are anywhere near sentience

>>59985371
In psudocode by the way, it would translate to something aproxiametely like this:
I <-- make
I <-- generalizes(Person)
Cube <-- make
Cube <-- generalizes(Cube) //This cube, is an instance.
I <-- property(have) += Cube
Ball <-- Make //etc...
I <-- (property(have) == Cube) swap_with Ball
Ball <-- property(color) == Blue
It <-- make
It <-- equals(Ball) //Here some trick would be needed.
she <-- equals(it)
Define: She
Define: It

So basically, after the machine parses the actual sentence into something like the avobe, it can answer easily. Of course you would have to do the inverse to transform the machine output into actual english language.

It could be done at a lower level (letters instead of words), and it would probably be much better, but I've have no clue how to implement that.

Notice that, though on the example the machine only uses information provided in the same phrase, that information will be stored and can be used later. So if after two days you ask: "I've got two balls, wich color are they?" She will answer blue. (Bad joke)

File: MoonManMaskFunnyMacDonaldMoonLatexHeadMaskHalloweenMaskCarnivalPartyCosplayMaskLatex.jpg (41KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x500px

>>59973330
Slaves weren't neither.

Beings don't need to be sentient to have rights.

Since AI is embedded in the functioning of humanity (function, not equal rights as humanity which is another debate) then it's inevitable that machines will have rights because their impact will be influential on humanity, ethics or even as a hedge versus proliferation.

Watch Bicentennial Man with Robin Williams

It's about an Android wanting to have equal rights to be considered as a human