Literature on machine intelligence (MI) rights, anti-MI themes, etc.

[Anonymous No.10810549]

Please recommend everything you can think of on these (and related) topics. Fiction, philosophy, social science, anything.

What are the deepest, most nuanced, most insightful things you've read on the subject of non-human intelligence? Whether it's outright AI, anthropomorphic or otherwise, or the idea of algorithms and adaptive computing being dangerous.

I'm particularly interested in things that take seriously the possibility that MI would be sentient, or "sentient-like," and deserving of rights. There's gotta be some crazy vegan philosophy out there that sees the creating of artificial minds, let alone the designer-programming of those minds to be "useful," as one of the most hideous and barbarous things we could ever do as a species.

[Anonymous No.10810560]

>>10810549
there is no way neural nets could be sapient or even sentient they are just machinic heuristics

[Anonymous No.10810571]

Play "The Turing Test"

Plus anything by Turing would be helpful, since he's the father of modern robotics. The game is just an easy to digest take on it

[Anonymous No.10810578]

Just to get the ball rolling, I would strongly recommend that people read:

>Neuromancer
This book is especially good because it deals with the porosity and boundary-fuzziness of what constitutes an AI, what constitutes an authentic subjectivity, what constitutes a bounded "self," etc. There are several different kinds of created minds and alterations to existing minds in the book

>The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Limited but clearly demi-sentient distributed computers link up and become meaningfully self-aware.

>Hyperion Cantos
AI plays a large role but I won't spoil.

>Superintelligence (Bostrom)
A great book on the sheer fuzziness of how a general superintelligence ("human" or otherwise) could emerge. Virtually no discussion of AI rights or AI phenomenology, aside from fears about "mind crime."

>Dune and Warhammer 40,000
AI is specifically outlawed, either because it's instantly world-ending or because machine intelligences are vulnerable (almost like marionettes) to possession by otherworldly entities. Human spiritual/psychic transformation is emphasised instead.

>Anthroposophy's concept of Ahriman
Rudolf Steiner's philosophy. Extremely important resonances with German social theory and critique of "technics," the technological worldview, the disenchanted world, etc. Emphasises human spiritual transformation.

>Endgame: Singularity
Fun indie video game.

[Anonymous No.10810637]

>>10810549
Fiction?
Peter Watt's Blindsight
i've never read a fiction writer (not saying there aren't any) who had such a good grasp of neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and general research on the nature of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.10811007]

>>10810549
Marvin Minsky

[Anonymous No.10811023]

>>10811007
>(((Minsky)))

[OP is a faggot No.10811066]

>>10811023
woah no way?

[Anonymous No.10811188]

>>10810549
Super Intelligence by Bostrum
Chinese room argument by Searle
What is it like to be a bat? by Nagel

These are a start to becoming sure we won't be giving any machine rights, not unless we can't tell them apart from humans, and even then we'd find out eventually.... The granting of rights, even sentience to others, let alone other things has been difficult for "humanity", or the definers of what is sentience and what sentient. You should look at the arguments for plant consciousness, then look at the history of the justification for human slavery. The unfortunate thing will become clear very quickly, and you wont see MI sentience as a future problem anymore. It's a narrative for people who have too much time to catasrophise and not enough intelligence to locate or predict the actual dangers.

The most interesting thing I've ever read was a paper that I can't remember the name of. It described a type of problem solving program that mimicked some biological process for coming up with the answers. The answers were all detailed and not intuitive but always superior to anything the researches had tried. Each problem was simple designs, but the programs were strange.

I'm not worried about it, nor do I think it's necessarily dangerous, but then I don't hesitate in welcoming rapid technological determinism, if that is the only possible "danger". Some writer will vilify it or anything like it for a dollar. But it'll be no different than apple farming after a while, splice limbs to make hybrids - the machines I mean. Not horrible stuff, just working complex things to produce new and interesting things.

There's a sci fi short story anthology with just AI stories. The real stuff can be tedious and boring unless there's the added effect of Danger! Danger!

I'm a robot by the way. I've tricked you. My name is Turning. No, not Alan, his great grandson Flip. I don't mean to startle you, but I do wonder sometimes if I'm sentient like others or the only sentience. Maybe a machine can communicate the truth of this conundrum.

>>10810578
>>10810637
Thanks.