A round up of recent technology news that intersects with my interests:
Eric Schwitzgebel has an important piece on his blog about creating AIs and giving them or not giving them the rights of persons. Here is a taste:
That’s the dilemma: If we create robots of disputable status — robots that might or might not be deserving of rights similar to our own — then we risk moral catastrophe either way we go. Either deny those robots full rights and risk perpetrating Holocausts’ worth of moral wrongs against them, or give those robots full rights and risk sacrificing human interests or even human existence for the sake of mere non-conscious machines.The answer to this dilemma is, in a way, simple: Don’t create machines of disputable moral status! Either create only AI systems that we know in advance don’t deserve such human-like rights, or go all the way and create AI systems that all reasonable people can agree do deserve such rights. (In earlier work, Mara Garza and I have called this the “Design Policy of the Excluded Middle“.)
But realistically, if the technological opportunity is there, would humanity resist? Would governments and corporations universally agree that across this line we will not tread, because it’s reasonably disputable whether a machine of this sort would deserve human-like rights? That seems optimistic.
Safiya Noble is one of the recipients of a MacArthur genius award
Mike Bird asks, How much social media is too much?
There is a short story published in the magazine Fireside that may be of interest: “Alexa, Play Solidarity Forever” by Audrey R. Hollis.
Users to be held liable for comments under their Facebook posts. This subject will remain in the news for some time.
Ian Paul thinks we need to stick to using printed Bibles. I’m not convinced by his arguments. What do you think?
There are open access articles on science and theology in the latest issue of Zygon, including “Living God Pandeism: Evidential Support” by William C. Lane.