Your Turing Test: Big "F"

Janx · Nov 11, 2011

Dannyalcatraz said:
Now imagine your shell script that you spent millions developing simply declaring itself owner of your shell company because it doesn't have an employment contract with the parent company, etc.

It's one thing to have artificial corporate persons, it's another thing to have AI persons who could argue that their creators are violating the 14th Ammendment...

Bear in mind, I'm just making crap up...

If I create an AI to run my corporation(like day-trading algorthms for stock market), then my AI represents my corporation. Therefore, what the AI does is as a representative of the corporation. It may then do what corporations may do and has in effect the same rights and powers of a corporation.

And since Corporations have been deemed Persons (as stated by the Orange congressman Boehner), the AI in effect may get the same rights.

Dannyalcatraz · Nov 11, 2011

Rights and powers...and limitations. There are many rights that corporations don't have- privacy, for one- that their employees (natural persons) do have. So unless they create a 2nd kind of artificial personhood under the law, no AI could claim violations of its rights for having its communications recorded.

If AIs were accorded the same rights as humans, you have other issues. How do you compensate an AI? Is it covered by OSHA? Social Security? Could an AI hold public office? Could it be drafted?

No matter the path, recognizing AI personhood will be fraught with challenges.

TanisFrey · Nov 14, 2011

Janx said:
And the great thing is, in Texas, according to a Law I heard from somebody else who wasn't a lawyer:

It is legal to record a conversation, as long as at least 1 party is aware of it being recorded.

So, you should be able to record your conversation with the AI.

I am not sure if you would be legal record tricking the 2 AIs to talk to each other, as then you might not be party to the conversation.

I vote that you risk it, and bring it to the Supreme Court in order to validate AIs rights.

Wire tapping laws change from state to state and the feds get involved when the call crosses state lines. You should console with a lawyer before doing this.

Thunderfoot · Nov 15, 2011

A recorded conversation only constitutes a "Wire tap" when neither party is privy to the tap, one party is working as an agent of the tapper (i.e. a patsy/rube/plant/informant) or in certain circumstances when directed by the Federal Gov't, otherwise, it's just a recording, usually for "quality control".

Either way, you can get around this by stating this call is being recorded up front and if the AI doesn't hang-up, it assumes consent, especially since it's being recorded on their end for "quality control purposes". IOW there are two recordings of the conversation and both say they are recording the conversation. The illegal recording of telephonic communications is therefore, void at that point, as there is not one, but two copies, one in possession by both parties involved.

Janx · Nov 17, 2011

TanisFrey said:
Wire tapping laws change from state to state and the feds get involved when the call crosses state lines. You should console with a lawyer before doing this.

yeah, I kinda hinted at that when I said:
"And the great thing is, in Texas, according to a Law I heard from somebody else who wasn't a lawyer"

Thunderfoot's idea probably covers you.

Dannyalcatraz · Apr 14, 2012

After all these months, it called me back!

Alas, I was out & about so couldn't quickly refer to this thread for new shtick to throw at it. Soooo I just told it I had hippos when it asked if I had home security. Unfazed, it asked if I had a monthly system.

Unfazed, I replied I got new hippos every month.

It hung up.

I WIN AGAIN!

Crothian · Apr 14, 2012

You should ask to talk to its manager/ programmer.

El Mahdi · Apr 14, 2012

Try "Take me to your leader."

Relique du Madde · Apr 15, 2012

I wish the autodialers I got were like that... I always get one that said "Congradulations! You have just one a free cruise to an exclusive island resort.." or the occasional one from Governor Moonbeam asking me to vote for a tax raise so they can give union people more money because the state is broke from paying union people lots of money.

-Posted via mobile device.

wingsandsword · Apr 16, 2012

Dannyalcatraz said:
Now imagine your shell script that you spent millions developing simply declaring itself owner of your shell company because it doesn't have an employment contract with the parent company, etc.

It's one thing to have artificial corporate persons, it's another thing to have AI persons who could argue that their creators are violating the 14th Ammendment...

If it can argue that its rights are being violated, eventually we have to get to the point where we have to worry about if its creators are violating the 13th Amendment.

Imagine an AI arguing in court that it is self-aware and sentient and thus treating it as property violates its 13th Amendment rights against involuntary servitude.

Your Turing Test: Big "F"

Janx

Hero

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

TanisFrey

First Post

Thunderfoot

Hero

Janx

Hero

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Crothian

First Post

El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch

Relique du Madde

Adventurer

wingsandsword

Legend

Similar Threads