Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-07-2016, 12:16 PM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
(29-07-2016 05:28 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I notice you fail to address my argument that your opinion is irrelevant. The same points support the position that a woman has the right to choose because it is her body.

Your opinion that my opinion is irrelevant is itself irrelevant so I did not address it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 12:22 PM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
(29-07-2016 12:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 05:28 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I notice you fail to address my argument that your opinion is irrelevant. The same points support the position that a woman has the right to choose because it is her body.

Your opinion that my opinion is irrelevant is itself irrelevant so I did not address it.

Your opinion is relevant only to yourself. You have no legitimate analogy or point. The next time you get pregnant, (which is the only way this bullshit IS relevant), then don't make the argument you don't like, and don't have an abortion.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 01:07 PM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
(29-07-2016 12:14 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 10:23 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  You mean eject / kill other beings like tape worms?

An AI might just treat you like a tape worm if it buys into the "My body therefore My Choice" argument.

So what? The AI is not a human. It wouldn't have human rights, it would have AI rights. In the same way that animals have animal rights.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
29-07-2016, 01:10 PM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
The 28th Amendment to the Constitution...
otherwise known as the Blowme Amendment : "Tapeworms Shall Be Granted The Rights of Persons".

I can see it now.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 04:00 PM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
Frankly, if we grant the shipboard AI (we'll say Cortana, rather than Hal, since Hal is not really an AI in the full sense that it's being used, here) the presumptive rights-status that we grant to humans, and the AI didn't want the other humans invading its body (and risking its life) against its will, then I'd say yes, the AI does have the right to eject the humans from its body.

If that's really the body of the sentient ship, and it did not want other beings onboard and had no other way to get rid of them (like, say, asking them to leave), then yes I would support its legal right to control what did and did not inhabit its body (hull), even to the point of forcibly ejecting the passengers. I would not have to like that the AI did so, but I would respect its right to one of the most fundamental rights to control its own self.

Indeed, the analogy works the other way: if you think that the ship and its fully-sentient AI must host those humans regardless of its own feelings on the matter, making it an unwilling slave to its crew, then you deny full personhood to that AI... and likewise, you treat women as "breeders", slaves to the uterus, denying them full personhood in the same respect.

The personhood of the crew members is irrelevant in the face of the fundamental right of that ship to control its body and what goes into it.

(On a side note, I invite you all to read the short sci-fi novel The Ship Who Sang, by Anne McCaffrey, one of my all-time favorites.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
29-07-2016, 05:02 PM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
How about we program these machines with Asimov's Three Laws?

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 05:42 PM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
(29-07-2016 05:02 PM)pablo Wrote:  How about we program these machines with Asimov's Three Laws?

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Maybe not so much ...

http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-asimovs-three...1553665410

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 07:58 PM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
(29-07-2016 05:42 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 05:02 PM)pablo Wrote:  How about we program these machines with Asimov's Three Laws?

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Maybe not so much ...

http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-asimovs-three...1553665410

Fair enough.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 07:37 AM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
(29-07-2016 12:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 05:28 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I notice you fail to address my argument that your opinion is irrelevant. The same points support the position that a woman has the right to choose because it is her body.

Your opinion that my opinion is irrelevant is itself irrelevant so I did not address it.

Except I didn't state an opinion. I made a supported argument which you failed to recognize, let alone address. Or perhaps I should say, failed to comprehend, since I did explain what I was doing.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
01-08-2016, 06:39 AM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
Ok, so I haven''t actually seen the film, but from wiki it appears that the ship isn't actually HAL's body, but a machine that is controlled by HAL. So the analogy is closer to, say, a human driving a car (does that human have a right to eject a passenger from the car if they insist on travelling to a different location to the driver) rather than abortion and the whole 'my body my choice' argument.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ukatheist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: