Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
AI Rights
Carl-E:
I wonder if the AI is something that sits above the software. Would compatibilty really be an issue to something that can go online and upgrade whatever was needed whenever necessary? Does the AI write its own code to run on any appropriate platfom?
techkid:
Actually, that's an interesting point. Currently, there is a somewhat proprietorial nature between computers (the biggest being between Mac and PC, as well as PC and Linux/UNIX (not too sure as between Mac and Linux, since there is some commonality between them)), with limited and not-quite-supported support to allow communication between them. Executables and binaries are definitely not cross-compatible, but non-executable files are through file system access (whether directly or through a third-party application) and networking protocols.
So looking at that, how would AI be configured to run? Whether it ends up being an executable or a file, compatibility would still be an issue. If it runs on its own, then the problem you face would be operating system (and possibly file system) support, and if it runs through an intermediary program, then system compatibility might not be so much of a problem, but the program will have to be upgraded and file compatibility is not always guaranteed.
Blackjoker:
--- Quote from: techkid on 12 Jan 2012, 06:43 ---Actually, that's an interesting point. Currently, there is a somewhat proprietorial nature between computers (the biggest being between Mac and PC, as well as PC and Linux/UNIX (not too sure as between Mac and Linux, since there is some commonality between them)), with limited and not-quite-supported support to allow communication between them. Executables and binaries are definitely not cross-compatible, but non-executable files are through file system access (whether directly or through a third-party application) and networking protocols.
So looking at that, how would AI be configured to run? Whether it ends up being an executable or a file, compatibility would still be an issue. If it runs on its own, then the problem you face would be operating system (and possibly file system) support, and if it runs through an intermediary program, then system compatibility might not be so much of a problem, but the program will have to be upgraded and file compatibility is not always guaranteed.
--- End quote ---
My own guess is that the AI is a kind of modified OS. Pintsize seemed far more..energetic and enthusiastic when he had extra ram chips added to him so I could imagine his AI at least being some kind of specialty OS. It's also possible that the housing for the AI itself is a kind of black box or something similar since it can apparenbtly allow for flow between sub and human body with relative ease.
I actually wonder a few other things too, could an AnthroPC vote? If not then that's a pretty big problem and a sign that society sees them as second class citizens, then again there is the argument that if a voter can make hundreds of copies of themselves there is also a kind of threat do democratic government. It does seem though that human and machine intelligences aren't at a point where they could be interchangeable, otherwise there would probably be instances of people rigging up transfers or some kind of trade, a robot wanting to be human and a human wanting a body that they can remake however they want (A la Marigolds thoughts after Momos new chasis).
My guess for Social Security would be that robots that pay in are given a kind of machine medicaid. It provides for repairs to their systems as well as repairs and necessary upgrades. If there's a national healthcare system in this timeline or at least something less horrid than the corporate oligarchy now then it would probably be parallel to such a thing. To the question of 'neglect' from an owner I would guess not, or not exactly. The concept seems to be that the 'owner' owns the chasis and rents it to an AI, like an apartment building or something similar. The contract would probably cover basic stuff like electricity and general maintenance but that sort of contract might be fairly recent, older ones might allow the owner to do what they wish without fear of reprecussion.
Is it cold in here?:
In the past we've seen a couple of instances of human companions doing hardware mods without permission. That fits a landlord/tenant model.
EDIT: that must be a thing of the past in the QC world. According to Jeph, an AnthroPC today is the legal owner of the body it operates in.
bhtooefr:
Resurrecting this thread, although there's a few old threads this could go in, I think...
EU to debate robot legal rights, mandatory "kill switches"
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version