X-Message-Number: 3951 From: Ralph Merkle <> Subject: Uploading Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 18:31:56 PST I agree with Robin's central thrust: it's not clear that the fine points of philosophy will have a major impact on the outcome. Thomas Donaldson said: >Nor do I expect such partial brains to stand up and ask for any rights. Who >would want to make them with the will to do that? We use our machines to do >what WE want, not what THEY want. Hans Moravec. And enough others that blocking the development of such beings would likely require an extremely vicious campaign of terror which would still be unlikely to work. In many respects, I share Thomas's concerns on this subject: we build computers to better the human condition. Creating a world where biological humans are shunted to the scrap heap is an undesirable thing to do. At the same time, it is unreasonable to assume that computers won't become *much* smarter than us. And if Hans Moravec elects to build an artificial brain modeled directly on his own, what should we do? Shoot him and destroy his "mindchild?" I for one think we should respect the rights of such a being just as we respect the rights of our fellow humans (well, actually, I hope we do better than that....) What choice do we have? By recognizing and protecting the rights of all intelligent beings we can hope to create a world where everyone (and everything) can live, if not in perfect harmony, at least in safety: knowing that their rights will be respected regardless of who (or what) they find themselves dealing with. If we don't, we risk the creation of a new (and very bright) underclass that will presumably dislike its inferior status and strive to alter it. We might not like the solutions that such minds cook up. Or we could seek to repress the development of such autonomous artificial minds. Everywhere. For all time. This strikes me as somewhat difficult. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3951