Economics Dictionary of Arguments

Home Screenshot Tabelle Begriffe

Human rights: Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world, from birth until death. They apply regardless of where you are from, what you believe or how you choose to live your life. See also Fundamental rights.
Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments.

Author Concept Summary/Quotes Sources

George M. Church on Human Rights - Dictionary of Arguments

Brockman I 242
Robots/human rights/George M. Church: Probably we should be less concerned about us-versus-them and more concerned about the rights of all sentients in the face of an emerging unprecedented diversity of minds. We should be harnessing this diversity to minimize global existential risks, like supervolcanoes and asteroids.
Brockman I 243
Very practically, we have to address the ethical rules that should be built in, learned, or probabilistically chosen for increasingly intelligent and diverse machines. We have a whole series of Trolley Problems. At what number of people in line for death should the computer decide to shift a moving trolley to one person? Ultimately this might be a deep-learning problem—one in which huge databases of facts and contingencies can be taken into account, some seemingly far from the ethics at hand.
>Trolley Problem/Church
Brockman I 244
Questions that at first seem alien and troubling, like “Who owns the new minds, and who pays for their mistakes?” are similar to well-established laws about who owns and pays for the sins of a corporation.
Brockman I 248
Robots/Weizenbaum/Church: In his 1976 book Computer Power and Human Reason(1), Joseph Weizenbaum argued that machines should not replace Homo in situations requiring respect, dignity, or care, while others (author Pamela McCorduck and computer scientists like John McCarthy and
Bill Hibbard) replied that machines can be more impartial, calm, and consistent and less abusive or mischievous than people in such positions.
George M. ChurchVsJefferson: (…) as we change geographical location and mature, our unequal rights change dramatically. Embryos, infants, children, teens, adults, patients, felons, gender identities and gender preferences, the very rich and very poor—all of these face different
Brockman I 249
rights and socioeconomic realities. One path to new mind-types obtaining and retaining rights similar to the most elite humans would be to keep a Homo component, like a human shield or figurehead monarch/CEO, signing blindly enormous technical documents, making snap financial, health, diplomatic, military, or security decisions. >Laws of Robotics/Church, George M.
Brockman I 250
Mirror test/self-consciousness: The robots Qbo have passed the “mirror test» for self-recognition and the robots NAO have passed a related test of recognizing their own voice and inferring their internal
state of being, mute or not.
Free will/computers/Church: For free will, we have algorithms that are neither fully deterministic nor random but aimed at nearly optimal probabilistic decision making. One could argue that this is a practical Darwinian consequence of game theory. For many (not all) games/problems, if we’re totally predictable or totally random, then we tend to lose.
Qualia: We could argue as to whether the robot actually experiences subjective qualia for free will or self-consciousness, but the same applies to evaluating a human. How do we know that a sociopath, a coma patient, a person with Williams syndrome, or a baby has the same free will or self-consciousness as our own? And what does it matter, practically? If humans (of any sort) convincingly claim to experience consciousness, pain, faith, happiness, ambition, and/or utility to society, should we deny them rights because their hypothetical qualia are hypothetically different from ours?
Brockman I 251
Do transhumans roam the Earth already? Consider the “uncontacted peoples,” such as the Sentinelese and Andamanese of India (…).
Brockman I 252
How would they or our ancestors respond? We could define “transhuman” as people and cultures not comprehensible to humans living in a modern, yet untechnological culture. The question “What was a human?” has already transmogrified into “What were the many kinds of transhumans?. . . And what were their rights?”

1. Weizenbaum, J. Computer Power and Human Reason. From Judgment to Calculation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1976

Church, George M. „The Rights of Machines” in: Brockman, John (ed.) 2019. Twenty-Five Ways of Looking at AI. New York: Penguin Press.

Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments
The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.

Chur I
A. Church
The Calculi of Lambda Conversion. (Am-6)(Annals of Mathematics Studies) Princeton 1985

Brockman I
John Brockman
Possible Minds: Twenty-Five Ways of Looking at AI New York 2019

Send Link
> Counter arguments against Church
> Counter arguments in relation to Human Rights

Authors A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  

Concepts A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z