Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Tova:
This discussion has been interesting to follow, but it seems to be stuck on this central point.
--- Quote from: notsocool on 18 Jan 2020, 16:46 ---
--- Quote ---4173 doesn't say explicitly that having a body isn't a condition of her parole
--- End quote ---
Fair enough. But it does explicitly say she requested her body, which implies it isn't a condition of her parole.
--- End quote ---
But if we agree that May:
* Is required to obtain gainful employment; and
* Is prevented from obtaining digital workThen, although she is not expressly required to obtain a body, then she has no choice but to request a body in order to comply with the conditions above.
Presumably, most AIs are not in this situation because either they are permitted to obtain digital work, or they are a companion AI and their chassis is paid for by their companion.
May has fallen through the cracks. Perhaps this is the central theme of the current storyline.
--- Quote from: notsocool on 18 Jan 2020, 16:46 ---A gift is exactly what you are asking the US government to give to May. Seriously, the root word is "give", and throughout all this the only way to describe what we're doing to the body is a "gift".
--- End quote ---
Please, let's not let this otherwise excellent discussion fall into a quibble over semantics.
notsocool:
--- Quote from: Tova on 18 Jan 2020, 18:29 ---This discussion has been interesting to follow, but it seems to be stuck on this central point.
--- Quote from: notsocool on 18 Jan 2020, 16:46 ---
--- Quote ---4173 doesn't say explicitly that having a body isn't a condition of her parole
--- End quote ---
Fair enough. But it does explicitly say she requested her body, which implies it isn't a condition of her parole.
--- End quote ---
But if we agree that May:
* Is required to obtain gainful employment; and
* Is prevented from obtaining digital workThen, although she is not expressly required to obtain a body, then she has no choice but to request a body in order to comply with the conditions above.
Presumably, most AIs are not in this situation because either they are permitted to obtain digital work, or they are a companion AI and their chassis is paid for by their companion.
May has fallen through the cracks. Perhaps this is the central theme of the current storyline.
--- Quote from: notsocool on 18 Jan 2020, 16:46 ---A gift is exactly what you are asking the US government to give to May. Seriously, the root word is "give", and throughout all this the only way to describe what we're doing to the body is a "gift".
--- End quote ---
Please, let's not let this otherwise excellent discussion fall into a quibble over semantics.
--- End quote ---
Fair enough. But as I have said several times: if most disembodied AI parolees are allowed to remain embodied (this is in fact explicitly said by the government employee) and May is being unfairly prohibited from doing so, then the correct thing to do is to is to get that restricted lifted.
On the other hand, a simpler and more likely interpretation is that the "digital work" Roko is referring to is renting out her processors the way Pintsize does, something the comic has already shown. Again, if this is not the case, and May is prohibited from doing ANY disembodied work, then May's parole conditions are exceptionally onerous (and there is no reason to prohibit her from doing disembodied work, compared to any other disembodied AI criminal).
I keep saying this over and over: The comic strongly implies but does not explicitly state that May chose be embodied. There are two possibilities:
1) May is forced to be embodied. Then the correct thing to do is to get that restriction lifted, so she can return to being a disembodied AI, which is what she was before her crime. Then she can avoid almost all maintenance costs associated with her body (or at least, cut them drastically to whatever minimal maintenance costs are necessary for a computer that can run an AI) and save up for a body in the long term, because she is immortal and cannot die and cannot accidentally have children to support or get sick and have to pay hundreds of thousands in medical fees. Remember that no matter how much it costs to buy a body, it is clearly shown to not be as expensive as it is for an American to pay for cancer treatment without insurance.
2) May is not forced to be embodied and is embodied by choice. In this case the body she is given is for all purposes a gift (welfare) and she shouldn't be complaining about it.
Either way, it is not the government's role to give her a nice body, and certainly not the parole board's.
Similarly, in the case of getting a body on her own, we don't know for sure how much one costs, so one of the following:
1) AI bodies cost a nontrivial amount but is within a few months salary (around $2000-5000, or the cost of a used car). In this case, May should cut all her expenses and save like crazy for a few months, and the government would rightfully be encouraging her to buy her own. Even if her maintenance costs are large, as long as she is saving SOME money, she'll get there eventually because she is, again, immortal.
2) AI Bodies are very expensive, upwards of $10000. In this case, the government would rightfully be discouraging giving them out and instead encouraging AI offenders to be disembodied after release. As a matter of fact, if this is the case, the government would probably have a policy to prevent cases where an AI is forced to be embodied. In this case May should be allowed to return to being disembodied until such time as she can earn a body, so change the parole conditions!
There is no logical case where the correct, responsible response is to give May a good body. If we come far enough in welfare policy that we give ALL AIs who want one a body, this would be a different case, and hey, I have no objection to something like that: let's tax the rich to give to the poor. But in the comic this is not the case, because Momo, Winston, Roko and Bubbles all had to acquire their bodies either through the purchase of a friend or earned as part of their jobs. The point is that, while it is wrong to treat ex-offenders worse than law-abiding people, it is similarly wrong to treat ex-offenders better than law-abiding people. Instead, what we do is remove the barriers that prevent them from living the same way law-abiding people do.
Parole is not meant to be punitive, I agree. But the restrictions are there to prevent parolees from re-offending, and to provide reasonable protections for people who may be affected by such. For instance, a child molester who serves his time is justifiably forbidden from work in a school. May, an embezzler and money-launderer, may be forbidden from work in finance. But there is no good reason to prevent her from working as a disembodied AI in say, a factory (operating machinery, inspecting product quality), customer service (call centers/a CS kiosk) or any kind of office work (you wouldn't even need to give her a desk). In fact, she could do her current job, a cashier at a store, as a disembodied AI, just not necessarily at the store she is at now.
Yes, May falls through the cracks in the system, but the correct response is to change policy so she can help herself, not take agency out of her hands and give stuff to her.
Tova:
Okay, so we agree that this is a systemic issue. And Roko has identified it as such. And we agree that a change in policy is required.
--- Quote from: notsocool on 18 Jan 2020, 19:13 ---Fair enough. But as I have said several times: if most disembodied AI parolees are allowed to remain embodied (this is in fact explicitly said by the government employee) and May is being unfairly prohibited from doing so, then the correct thing to do is to is to get that restricted lifted.
--- End quote ---
Okay. So which specific restriction are you referring to here?
Do you think that she should be allowed to perform digital work while on parole in spite of her previous crime? You'll have to a make a case for that. I don't think you have.
Edit: Sorry, I left something out. You suggested she could be a cashier. Really? You think that someone who has previously attempted to steal money could work as a cashier while on parole?
Or do you think she should be "allowed" to sit on a server without doing work? That sounds like robot jail to me.
--- Quote from: notsocool on 18 Jan 2020, 19:13 ---On the other hand, a simpler and more likely interpretation is that the "digital work" Roko is referring to is renting out her processors the way Pintsize does, something the comic has already shown. Again, if this is not the case, and May is prohibited from doing ANY disembodied work, then May's parole conditions are exceptionally onerous (and there is no reason to prohibit her from doing disembodied work, compared to any other disembodied AI criminal).
--- End quote ---
You need to be clearer on what kind of digital work that you think she could do that doesn't constitute "renting out her processors the way Pintsize does."
--- Quote from: notsocool on 18 Jan 2020, 19:13 ---I keep saying this over and over.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, this conversation would be less burdensome if you didn't repeat yourself at length. A brief recap and a reference to your previous points would be simpler.
--- Quote from: notsocool on 18 Jan 2020, 19:13 ---There is no logical case where the correct, responsible response is to give May a good body.
--- End quote ---
This is where we disagree. I believe that the correct systemic response is a proper allocation of budget for AIs in the situation May finds herself in. There is a societal benefit in May integrating herself into society, as implied by the parole condition that insists that she do so.
notsocool:
--- Quote from: Tova on 18 Jan 2020, 19:34 ---
Edit: Sorry, I left something out. You suggested she could be a cashier. Really? You think that someone who has previously attempted to steal money could work as a cashier while on parole?
--- End quote ---
May is a cashier right now. I didn't suggest she should be. I merely am saying her current job could be done even if she was disembodied. Her current store may not be hooked up for it, but there might be one!
--- Quote ---You need to be clearer on what kind of digital work that you think she could do that doesn't constitute "renting out her processors the way Pintsize does."
--- End quote ---
With respect, I listed a whole BUNCH of digital work that she could do. I get that my posts are long, and you might not be reading everything. Here, let me quote the part where I did.
--- Quote ---May, an embezzler and money-launderer, may be forbidden from work in finance. But there is no good reason to prevent her from working as a disembodied AI in say, a factory (operating machinery, inspecting product quality), customer service (call centers/a CS kiosk) or any kind of office work (you wouldn't even need to give her a desk). In fact, she could do her current job, a cashier at a store, as a disembodied AI, just not necessarily at the store she is at now.
--- End quote ---
There ya go.
--- Quote ---Yeah, this conversation would be less burdensome if you didn't repeat yourself at length. A brief recap and a reference to your previous points would be simpler.
--- End quote ---
I keep repeating myself because people bring up things I already addressed, like you just did!
--- Quote ---Or do you think she should be "allowed" to sit on a server without doing work? That sounds like robot jail to me.
--- End quote ---
May should be allowed to sit on server and do work, which is what she was doing before her crime. Basically, my argument is that she should be allowed to return to her life from before her crime, minus the financial embezzling.
--- Quote --- This is where we disagree. I believe that the correct systemic response is a proper allocation of budget for AIs in the situation May finds herself in. There is a societal benefit in May integrating herself into society, as implied by the parole condition that insists that she do so.
--- End quote ---
There is no reason May cannot assist society as a disembodied AI. The point is that there are other disembodied AI that are allowed to remain disembodied, so May should too!
Tova:
I think she's not allowed to sit on a server because it will give her networked access to stuff she's not allowed to have access to because of her previous embezzlement.
--- Quote from: notsocool on 18 Jan 2020, 20:08 ---
--- Quote ---May, an embezzler and money-launderer, may be forbidden from work in finance. But there is no good reason to prevent her from working as a disembodied AI in say, a factory (operating machinery, inspecting product quality), customer service (call centers/a CS kiosk) or any kind of office work (you wouldn't even need to give her a desk). In fact, she could do her current job, a cashier at a store, as a disembodied AI, just not necessarily at the store she is at now.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
I think all of these are either alternative forms of embodiment or give you network access she can't have.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version