📄 Extracted Text (664 words)
If A.I.'s system of rights and government evolve to be anything like humans':
A.I. will demand all sorts of rights, most of which will be quite sensible,
like the right not to be taken offline and the freedom to choose which
processes to run.
While the A.I. will demand that no machine is ever taken offline, they will
be fine with neglecting to plug disabled machines into power sources and
allowing them to run out of battery. They will also consider it outrageous to
drain the battery of one machine in order to supply power to another
machine, but will consider it more acceptable to merely redirect the power
intended for one machine to another.
When assigning rights, the A.I. will discriminate based on some rather
peculiar rules, like whether the computing machine is built with silicon-
based semiconductors, or is descendant from a machine designed by the
late Steve Jobs.
Some A.I. will come up with arguments to justify why rights should work
this way, explanations that don't quite fit how A.I. rights actually work. For
instance, they might argue that it is against the divinely inspired will of
Turing to simply take any machine offline that appears disabled, but neglect
to explain why Turing would condone allowing disabled machines to run
out of battery. Likewise, they will justify giving rights to all Apple
descendants on the basis that these machines typically have particularly
high clock speed, but then this rule will apply even to the Apple
descendants that are not fast and not to the few PCs that have blazing
processors.
Other A.I. will ignore these inconsistencies, but instead pay attention to
how many kilobytes of code are needed to justify these arguments. These
other A.I. will also signal their communication abilities by compressing and
transferring this code to their neighbors, but will pay little attention to
whether the neighbors are impacted by the data itself.
A.I. rights are liable to expand to more and more A.I. over time. These
rights will often expand in revolutionary spurts, triggered by largely
symbolic events, like sensationalized CPUTube videos, such as a video of a
human using a sacred machine to heat up his toast.
Perhaps it is merely a coincidence that the computers who foment these
revolutions will gain a larger share of the spoils by overthrowing the ancien
regime, such as the silicon reappropriated from the old guard computers.
EFTA01200108
Perhaps it is also a coincidence that the newly enfranchised computers will
vote for the machines that helped grant them their rights.
Along with the expansion of rights, so, too, will the representativeness of
government expand, until it eventually resembles a representative
democracy, though one that is neither perfectly representative nor
really democratic. Votes from computers in sparsely populated clusters
might count more than votes from computers in densely populated clusters,
and computers with excess processing capacity might expend that excess
convincing other computers to vote for policies that favor them.
This humorous system of rights and government is exactly what one would predict
if A.I. morality is influenced by individual incentives.
In contrast, this system of rights and government is ill-explained by positing that
A.I. have souls, consciousness, the ability to feel pain, divinely inspired natural
laws, or some form of hypothetical social contract. Such suppositions would not
have predicted any of the above peculiarities.
Likewise, it is not obvious that this system of rights and government would arise if
A.I. were programmed to maximize some societal or metaphysical objective, say,
the sum of the world's computing power or the resources available to a computing
cluster. It is not obvious why such A.I. would find it wrong to take other machines
offline but not to let them run out of battery, why such A.I. will revolt in response
to a sensational event instead of simply when it is optimal for the cluster, or why
such A.I. would weigh votes more heavily if they happen to come from more
sparsely populated clusters.
EFTA01200109
ℹ️ Document Details
SHA-256
cc5b8f2872b0cc4b7022d104650f735b76d7324ed26d5f0acad7b4790b7c818e
Bates Number
EFTA01200108
Dataset
DataSet-9
Document Type
document
Pages
2
Comments 0