I totally agree, Eliezer.
Yet I like making references to science fiction when I discuss the future when discussing with friends, or on my blog for a couple of reasons:
It’s a strong argument in favor of accelerating change: the technology that exists today is way beyond many of the gadgets depicted in SF from a few decades back which predicted them for 1500 years later. And, even more impressing is that these gadgets are cheap and available to anyone, at least in rich countries (mobile phones, the Web, GPS, iPods...). If anything, it stresses how common wisdom downplays the evolution of technologies, which helps to make a case for AGI emerging in decades, not centuries.
SF helps to raise important questions about the future which are hard to address in the setting of the present. The classic example of that is the failure of Asimov’s law of robotics. The more recent example is the TV series BattleStar Galactica. Of course it’s unrealistic and biased, but it changed my views on the issues of AGI’s rights. Can a robot be destroyed without a proper trial? Is it OK to torture it? to rape it? What about marrying one? or having children with it (or should I type “her”)?
It’s a strong argument in favor of accelerating change: the technology that exists today is way beyond many of the gadgets depicted in SF from a few decades back which predicted them for 1500 years later.
I’ve noticed that it’s not so much that our technology is better as it is that it’s completely different. Science fiction routinely includes things that are physically impossible. We invent things that never occurred to authors. What you’re really doing is using science fiction to illustrate that you can’t predict the future by relying on science fiction.
For some reason I can’t reply to MugaSofer’s response, so I’ll just put this here...
that would seem to imply that infertile women are not female. Do you use a similar definition for male, or consider all non-females “male”?
It would seem to imply nothing of the sort.
Here’s an example of how badly you dropped the logical ball:
Saying
“people who write things like you just wrote, are making really stupid rookie errors in logic and calling their capacity for argument into question”
is qualitatively not related to saying
“people who write things other than what you wrote never make really stupid rookie errors in logic and their capacity for argument cannot be questioned”.
Related: If A implies B, that does not mean that NotA implies NotB.
I’m not sure if I should be using scare quotes for “female” :-\
Seems a lot of folks here are conflating the idea of female with the idea of woman. Female is a term of science, not socio-waffle: woman is (latterly) some idea about how one feels within one’s own skin. A female may identify as a man, and a male may identify as a woman. (Note also: I am perfectly aware that the etymology of “female” is said to be the Latin femina, which means woman: words do not mean what their roots mean).
It’s really not that hard.
EDIT: Why the SOTL quote?
To make you think “Why the SOTL quote? [Does this guy hate women?]”
Let’s just say that if it is capable of gestating a foetus (of its own species) to ‘maturity’ (i.e., birth) internally, it’s female, irrespective of what nonsense it claims in its ‘self identification’.
It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again.
Ignoring the fact that this is a robot, that would seem to imply that infertile women are not female. Do you use a similar definition for male, or consider all non-females “male”?
I’m not sure if I should be using scare quotes for “female” :-\
Can a robot be destroyed without a proper trial? Is it OK to torture it? to rape it? What about marrying one? or having children with it (or should I type “her”)?
I can’t help but notice that many (all?) of these questions seem dependent on how closely the AGI resembles a neurotypical human.
I totally agree, Eliezer. Yet I like making references to science fiction when I discuss the future when discussing with friends, or on my blog for a couple of reasons:
It’s a strong argument in favor of accelerating change: the technology that exists today is way beyond many of the gadgets depicted in SF from a few decades back which predicted them for 1500 years later. And, even more impressing is that these gadgets are cheap and available to anyone, at least in rich countries (mobile phones, the Web, GPS, iPods...). If anything, it stresses how common wisdom downplays the evolution of technologies, which helps to make a case for AGI emerging in decades, not centuries.
SF helps to raise important questions about the future which are hard to address in the setting of the present. The classic example of that is the failure of Asimov’s law of robotics. The more recent example is the TV series BattleStar Galactica. Of course it’s unrealistic and biased, but it changed my views on the issues of AGI’s rights. Can a robot be destroyed without a proper trial? Is it OK to torture it? to rape it? What about marrying one? or having children with it (or should I type “her”)?
I’ve noticed that it’s not so much that our technology is better as it is that it’s completely different. Science fiction routinely includes things that are physically impossible. We invent things that never occurred to authors. What you’re really doing is using science fiction to illustrate that you can’t predict the future by relying on science fiction.
Depends. What does the robot identify as?
For some reason I can’t reply to MugaSofer’s response, so I’ll just put this here...
It would seem to imply nothing of the sort.
Here’s an example of how badly you dropped the logical ball:
Saying
“people who write things like you just wrote, are making really stupid rookie errors in logic and calling their capacity for argument into question”
is qualitatively not related to saying
“people who write things other than what you wrote never make really stupid rookie errors in logic and their capacity for argument cannot be questioned”.
Related: If A implies B, that does not mean that NotA implies NotB.
Seems a lot of folks here are conflating the idea of female with the idea of woman. Female is a term of science, not socio-waffle: woman is (latterly) some idea about how one feels within one’s own skin. A female may identify as a man, and a male may identify as a woman. (Note also: I am perfectly aware that the etymology of “female” is said to be the Latin femina, which means woman: words do not mean what their roots mean).
It’s really not that hard.
To make you think “Why the SOTL quote? [Does this guy hate women?]”
Let’s just say that if it is capable of gestating a foetus (of its own species) to ‘maturity’ (i.e., birth) internally, it’s female, irrespective of what nonsense it claims in its ‘self identification’.
It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again.
Ignoring the fact that this is a robot, that would seem to imply that infertile women are not female. Do you use a similar definition for male, or consider all non-females “male”?
I’m not sure if I should be using scare quotes for “female” :-\
EDIT: Why the SOTL quote?
I can’t help but notice that many (all?) of these questions seem dependent on how closely the AGI resembles a neurotypical human.