Digitalized human personality

[Moreno]

If there will be a way invented in the foreseeable future how to transfer human personality to a chip, shouldn't the legislators start to pass a laws already now, which would protect the rights of such a digitalized humans? I would suggest the following rules to think on:

1) A digitalized personality suppose to have the same rights as a "common" human.

2) It has to be protected against abuse and slavery.

3) A dig. personality suppose to own a carrier it is located on automatically. So, if someone settled a personality to its own futuristic smartphone he looses rights to owe this smartphone automatically and dig. person gains it. Government suppose provide a mechanical body to a dig. person free of cost to permit it have freedom of movement.

4) A dig. person suppose to be provided with free access to info news, basic communication free of cost, gain right to transfer from one carrier to another at will, etc. Right to receive welfare as a regular human and do upgrades.

What do you think about that?

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Moreno said:

If there will be a way invented in the foreseeable future how to transfer human personality to a chip, shouldn't the legislators start to pass a laws already now, which would protect the rights of such a digitalized humans? I would suggest the following rules to think on:

1) A digitalized personality suppose to have the same rights as a "common" human.

2) It has to be protected against abuse and slavery.

3) A dig. personality suppose to own a carrier it is located on automatically. So, if someone settled a personality to its own futuristic smartphone he looses rights to owe this smartphone automatically and dig. person gains it. Government suppose provide a mechanical body to a dig. person free of cost to permit it have freedom of movement.

4) A dig. person suppose to be provided with free access to info news, basic communication free of cost, gain right to transfer from one carrier to another at will, etc. Right to receive welfare as a regular human and do upgrades.

What do you think about that?

There's no reason to legislate until the potential is realised. Having said that surely the DIG is owned by the human that digitized itself and subject to that person's whims. 

[Moreno]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There's no reason to legislate until the potential is realised. Having said that surely the DIG is owned by the human that digitized itself and subject to that person's whims. 

I didn't understand your thought exactly, but first of all I regarded a situation when some person(s) digitalize someone ELSE personality rather than their own and settle it into a "neurocomputer" (either non-organic or biological). The old personality of a digitalized person may be destroyed during the process, so we could say that some person lost its original body and is trapped into a slavery. Furthermore I think that creating a copies of somebodies personality should be prohibited as well, even if original still exist. Owing its own copy and keeping it in slavery have to be prohibited as well.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Moreno

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, Moreno said:

I didn't understand your thought exactly, but first of all I regarded a situation when some person(s) digitalize someone ELSE personality rather than their own and settle it into a "neurocomputer" (either non-organic or biological). 

1

 

It doesn't matter who does the deed, the human who's personality is used would need to give permission and would either own it or sign a waiver giving up the ownership.

16 hours ago, Moreno said:

The old personality of a digitalized person may be destroyed during the process

Then I'm not sure what the point is.

16 hours ago, Moreno said:

so we could say that some person lost its original body and is trapped into a slavery. Furthermore I think that creating a copies of somebodies personality should be prohibited as well, even if original still exist. Owing its own copy and keeping it in slavery have to be prohibited as well.

How can you enslave a computer/program/personality, what leverage would you have to enforce/coerce it and what would you force it to do?

[EdEarl]

Grey Area: Would a prohibition of copying a personality include Alec Baldwin impersonating President Donald Trump on SNL, and similar impersonations? 

Furthermore, capturing a personality with a computer might be done by conventional programming or by letting a deep learning system study videos of the person. The former, programming can easily be copied and will not change without additional programming. On the other hand, copies made on deep learning systems would diverge as the AI interacted with its environment (AI life?). Why would the person whose -ality was copied in a learning system own the AI life after environmental changes; surely that AI has its own -ality.

[Strange]

 

41 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

Furthermore, capturing a personality with a computer might be done by conventional programming or by letting a deep learning system study videos of the person.

This idea has been explored in science fiction, and now in reality: https://www.theverge.com/a/luka-artificial-intelligence-memorial-roman-mazurenko-bot

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, EdEarl said:

Grey Area: Would a prohibition of copying a personality include Alec Baldwin impersonating President Donald Trump on SNL, and similar impersonations? 

Furthermore, capturing a personality with a computer might be done by conventional programming or by letting a deep learning system study videos of the person. The former, programming can easily be copied and will not change without additional programming. On the other hand, copies made on deep learning systems would diverge as the AI interacted with its environment (AI life?). Why would the person whose -ality was copied in a learning system own the AI life after environmental changes; surely that AI has its own -ality.

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

This idea has been explored in science fiction, and now in reality: https://www.theverge.com/a/luka-artificial-intelligence-memorial-roman-mazurenko-bot

Indeed, but I think the OP is clumsily trying to explore our ethical approach to a new, sentient/self-aware/intelligent lifeform. 
Ignoring the fact that we always assume ownership over less educated humans and other animals despite intelligence.
The real ethical question is, what do we own and why?

[YaDinghus]

On 10/29/2017 at 9:36 AM, Moreno said:

If there will be a way invented in the foreseeable future how to transfer human personality to a chip, shouldn't the legislators start to pass a laws already now, which would protect the rights of such a digitalized humans? I would suggest the following rules to think on:

1) A digitalized personality suppose to have the same rights as a "common" human.

2) It has to be protected against abuse and slavery.

3) A dig. personality suppose to own a carrier it is located on automatically. So, if someone settled a personality to its own futuristic smartphone he looses rights to owe this smartphone automatically and dig. person gains it. Government suppose provide a mechanical body to a dig. person free of cost to permit it have freedom of movement.

4) A dig. person suppose to be provided with free access to info news, basic communication free of cost, gain right to transfer from one carrier to another at will, etc. Right to receive welfare as a regular human and do upgrades.

What do you think about that?

1 includes 2.

Ad 3 and 4: if you can freely move between devices, you could also squat in another device. The device isn't your body, but your home. You will most likely even cohabitate with other AI's in a server, paying rent for permission to be there. If the high-life happens in the simulated environment, which I would assume if we can simulate personalities, then a physical body to control is a luxury - imagine it being like your time share condo in Aspen. Freedom to move from one device to another at will also requires free communication. I'm assuming the information you gather as a digital personality on a daily basis is a negligible fraction of the personality core you wish to migrate from one device to another. Also the Government will want to push mainstream media on you to direct your opinion to a degree, because everyone can share whatever they like, and you know how wild social media are today with our slow brains propagating information and misinformation. 

A question I have for you is what kind of welfare do you mean? A digital person diesn't require extra chemical nourishment, they just need the processing power of the divice they're currently running on. Maybe they just get 1 THz allocated for their personality processes and have to pay extra rent to get extra processing power allocated? 

[Severian]

The difficulty here is going to be how does one assess conciousness or sentience. If you can't do that, then you will have difficulty deciding who or what these rights should be assigned to. I really don't think we are very far away from a digital personality passing the Turing test, but I don't think I would necessarily use that to distinguish sentience.

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, Severian said:

The difficulty here is going to be how does one assess conciousness or sentience. If you can't do that, then you will have difficulty deciding who or what these rights should be assigned to. I really don't think we are very far away from a digital personality passing the Turing test, but I don't think I would necessarily use that to distinguish sentience.

If the expression  of the digitised personality is indistinguishable from an organic brain, does it matter, since it would express everything that we do?

Long time no see. Hope you are well.  

Edited June 10, 2018 by StringJunky

[YaDinghus]

17 hours ago, Severian said:

I really don't think we are very far away from a digital personality passing the Turing test, but I don't think I would necessarily use that to distinguish sentience.

People are regularly fooled by chat bots. They have been passing the turing test for quite a while. 

I've been rewatching Star Trek TNG and I came across the EP where DATA is in the hearing to determine whether he is a bona fide person with rights or property of Starfleet. It may be a debate that is never satisfyingly settled

Edited June 10, 2018 by YaDinghus

[Severian]

On 10/06/2018 at 2:24 AM, StringJunky said:

If the expression  of the digitised personality is indistinguishable from an organic brain, does it matter, since it would express everything that we do?

Long time no see. Hope you are well.  

Yes, I think that is true (i.e. it doesn't matter). That is a long way past passing the Turing test though, which I am interpreting as an ability to fool a human over a short conversation.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

People are regularly fooled by chat bots. They have been passing the turing test for quite a while. 

And it’s evolved a rather long way since then, too:

 

[YaDinghus]

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

And it’s evolved a rather long way since then, too:

 

Imagine google AI picking up the phone on both sides and talking to itself...

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, YaDinghus said:

Imagine google AI picking up the phone on both sides and talking to itself...

That''s when it will be just about be equivalent to a human mind.  I think having an  internal dialogue  is a defining step...It should be able create  a sense of self and be objective from there .

[YaDinghus]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

That''s when it will be just about be equivalent to a human mind.  I think having an  internal dialogue  is a defining step...It should be able create  a sense of self and be objective from there .

I wasn't aiming at that but it's still a valid point +1

[iNow]

9 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

Imagine google AI picking up the phone on both sides and talking to itself...

AFAIK, it already can

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

That''s when it will be just about be equivalent to a human mind.  I think having an  internal dialogue  is a defining step...It should be able create  a sense of self and be objective from there .

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

AFAIK, it already can

Yet no-one is rushing to the courthouse to demand it has rights, so the Turing test isn't a test of sentience, so even if a human brain can be fully digitized how do we distinguish it from an AI? 

 

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yet no-one is rushing to the courthouse to demand it has rights, so...

Well, actually...

https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/robots-deserve-a-first-amendment-right-to-free-speech.html

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

so even if a human brain can be fully digitized how do we distinguish it from an AI? 

I'm unsure we can, nor am I convinced we should.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Well, actually...

https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/robots-deserve-a-first-amendment-right-to-free-speech.html

Not quite what I meant, but interesting for this "It’s not about protecting them. It’s about protecting us.".

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

I'm unsure we can, nor am I convinced we should.

Indeed, but this will be the deciding factor, not because either is sentient, but due to the emotional responses of people to memory, so not a test of sentience unless a photo is sentient.

[StringJunky]

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yet no-one is rushing to the courthouse to demand it has rights, so the Turing test isn't a test of sentience, so even if a human brain can be fully digitized how do we distinguish it from an AI? 

 

You can't in logical tests because they are made in our image.