SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the but-first-we-need-a-definition-of-genuine-intelligence dept.
When we talk about artificial intelligence (AI), what do we actually mean ?
AI experts and philosophers are beavering away on the issue. But having a usable definition of AI – and soon – is vital for regulation and governance because laws and policies simply will not operate without one.
This definition problem crops up in all regulatory contexts, from ensuring truthful use of the term “AI” in product advertising right through to establishing how next-generation Automated Weapons Systems (AWSs) [PDF] are treated under the laws of war.
True, we may eventually need more than one definition (just as “goodwill” means different things in different contexts). But we have to start somewhere so, in the absence of a regulatory definition at the moment, let’s get the ball rolling.
http://theconversation.com/why-we-need-a-legal-definition-of-artificial-intelligence-46796
Original Submission
(Score: 5, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Friday September 04 2015, @11:00AM
You imply that true (A)I equals consciousness. I don't think this is necessarily true. For one, there is no consensus on a scientific decision for intelligence yet, and for consciousness there is no valid test its presence as well.
In my opinion, both are very different. Intelligence provides a tool to reach a defined goal, but it does no provide motivation or feelings. Consciousness provides feelings, motivations, goals etc., but not the means to achieve the aspirations. There are some dumb people that appear to be much more "alive" than some intelligent people. Once could even argue that a plus in consciousness (and therefore arguably vigour and persistence) can make up for lack of intelligence.
Both are very important concepts, but not yet understood or defined by science.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday September 04 2015, @07:02PM
I think it is important that we err on the side of caution. If we don't know enough to make a decision, it is best we assume there is consciousness. Also, I added the different tiers of "AI" to cover scenarios where different rules should apply.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday September 04 2015, @10:43PM
I agree with the sentiment, but before starting to think about the potential feelings of an AI I think it would be prudent to think about the very likely feelings of other biological species. I do think that electronic live might be possible, but I don't think we will come close for the upcoming decades.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday September 07 2015, @07:04AM
Yes, how technology affects human life is probably the more important idea. However, the submissions asked about regulatory definitions, and how we start down the path will greatly influence how things are handled if AI is accomplished.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Saturday September 05 2015, @02:03AM
Assuming the AI will be conscious is not erring on the side of caution. Assume it will be a thoroughly alien entity with several programming mistakes and potentially godlike power.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.