Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)

<< < (28/39) > >>

Cornelius:
To point 2: what he did say was that it is a rare case, and there is limited budget. Limited can sometimes be an understatement for none.
To point 3: if in fact, an AI is legal owner of the hardware it runs on (word of Jeph), that would mean there is hardware for her to return to. But then, that is, to me, an explanation/clarification that creates more problems than it solves, as it is, for this story line, an angle that has not been touched upon at all.

Aenno:

--- Quote from: Cornelius on 17 Jan 2020, 03:05 ---To point 3: if in fact, an AI is legal owner of the hardware it runs on (word of Jeph), that would mean there is hardware for her to return to.

--- End quote ---
With all due respect to author vision, I can't accept it as a legal rule. I mean, I perfectly agree that AI can be the owners, and that social consensus tends to at least respect AI "sitting rights", but every time we are shown purchasing a chassis, it's always a human being buying it. I can't imagine a can of worms about automatical translating of ownership just because a person happened "jump in". What I believe exists is right of possession on the body.
Still, it's absolutely possible that, even if she was an owner for this hardware, it was confiscated as a mean of crime. Because, well, it was.

notsocool:

--- Quote from: Aenno on 17 Jan 2020, 01:41 ---
2. Again, I'd like to notice that beggars can't be choosers in parole system. If there is a lot of AIs who are allowed to be disembodied and to work, it's good for them; that doesn't mean such an option exists for May, and, by the way, bureaucrat never said this! Reread him: he never suggests May refuse a body and became disembodied, staying on parole (and also he is rude on the point of lawsuit - he offended a citizen at least twice, calling her incompetent and stupid). Existence of other cases can be a reason for parole conditions changing hearing, but, well, it costs money (that May haven't), and it means more attention to her life with a threat of return to jail (that May is afraid). What he IS saying is that "hey, it's rare and insignificant case, that's why she'll have a bad body", not "hey, your client can nicely exist without a body at all". And, again, his own job existence means that it happens often enough. Essentially, rule of thumb: when a government worker (or, well, any worker) saying you that your case is unimportant and rare of him to bother to do anything, take his reasoning with a grain of salt.

--- End quote ---

The question really is, why do you think May is a special case that she is explicitly disallowed from being disembodied? This is conjecture. You are assuming the worst case scenario. May was disembodied before her crime and was disembodied throughout prison. Why would they suddenly require her to get a body? Also, if the problem is that she is given ridiculous parole conditions, perhaps the answer should be to get those conditions changed?


--- Quote ---3. And again I'd like to point that being disembodied isn't equal to being without hardware to be based on. They still need a hardware, hardware that suits the basic need of running an AI, and have enough resources for the job in question as well. And this hardware can be quite costly. A simplest server machine I had on my work would cost about 1000$, and, you know, it's a paid job to maintenance it, and it takes some electricity to work. Essentially, being disembodied in QC universe looks like the synonymous to "being limited to unmobile platform". So when you're saying "May could not ask for a body, but stay unembodied", you're saying "government would provide her a server machine instead of gynoid body, for free".
--- End quote ---

Okay. But May was doing that before she committed her crime. If indeed a disembodied AI does require a machine... okay c'mon. Let's be real here. There is no way a server spot would cost anywhere near as much as a humanoid body with the exact same processing requirements PLUS manipulators and legs to maintain. More importantly, if this requires a purchase, May already has one. She was disembodied before her crime, so that's what she used to be!


--- Quote ---I'd say giving you a car is a decent thing.
--- End quote ---

Sure! But do you think it should be new and be of good quality?


--- Quote ---2. Still, I do believe in human decency thing. Somebody being bad shouldn't remove it. So yeah, I'm up for medicare, shelters and free clothes to people who can not afford it. Even if they're bad.
--- End quote ---

This is not my point. I am all for social welfare. My point is, should we give a parolee medicare, shelters and free clothes if law-abiding people were not entitled to these things? I want parolees to be treated as well as people with no criminal record. But what you are suggesting is that we treat them better than people with no criminal record!

jwhouk:
Boy, this is reminding me of the old days of the long WCDT's with multiple arguments...

Thing is, there's a couple of major things that Roko's up against here:

1. Bureaucracy, and
2. the basic question of AI rights.

The problem is that, to the latter, it took the US over a century to really address basic human rights (and they still haven't quite got it down). And, to the former, no one has ever figured out a way of getting around it, once it is in place - short of pitching the whole of government into the trash bin.

Aenno:

--- Quote from: notsocool on 17 Jan 2020, 03:58 ---
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---why do you think May is a special case that she is explicitly disallowed from being disembodied?
--- End quote ---
Because she is explicitly obliged to find a job, she is explicitly obliged to live in society, and she is explicitly forbidden to do any kind of digital job. It's necessary means she can't be disembodied and conform to parole requirements. Actually, "find a job, but you can't do any kind of digital job" is already a "no disembodiment" rule. Any job disembodiment AI can do is digital.
It's not, actually, ridiculous. It's ok. She is forbidden to do digital jobs, because they're giving her exact tools she was abused for her crime. It's absolutely common pardon condition. Her being obliged to find a job is absolutely decent pardon condition. Her being obliged to actually live in society, is the very point of her release: it is about integration her in society. Not reintegration, by the way, integration - May doesn't even have a name before Dale gave her one.


--- Quote ---If indeed a disembodied AI does require a machine... okay c'mon.
--- End quote ---
The common knowledge of the lack of networked AIs (that doesn't have a machine) is declared. It's possible that things like Spookybot (Yay?) is really defy this knowledge, but their existence isn't common knowledge as well.


--- Quote ---More importantly, if this requires a purchase, May already has one. She was disembodied before her crime, so that's what she used to be!
--- End quote ---
First, as I said before, it's absolutely possible (on the level "it would be very curious if it hasn't") it was confiscated as a mean of crime.
Second, yeah, I can perfectly imagine a server that would cost more then humanoid body. Again, it's not fixed stats like "that's a server, it costs X; it's humanoid body, it costs Y". Again, it's like cars. Is it possible that a car cost more then a, let's say, house? I can buy a house in Russia (where I reside) for, about, 50K USD (3 millions roubles). Ferrari 488 Spider costs ten times from it (32 millions).
Point is, don't assume "disembodiment" means "free as a wind, completely no expenses, no need of platform". It's a question about "what platform government should allow for released convict" anyway.


--- Quote ---Sure! But do you think it should be new and be of good quality?
--- End quote ---
It should be in operating quality. By every technical standard, May's body isn't. It's casually breaking in normal use.


--- Quote ---My point is, should we give a parolee medicare, shelters and free clothes if law-abiding people were not entitled to these things?
--- End quote ---
Yes, because we're putting them in situation where it's HARDER for them to get all of this by themselves.
Look at this by another way. Should we give prisoners medicare, shelters and free clothes, if we don't give it to law-abiding people?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page