To the editor: Those that are involved about hurting the emotions of sentient artificial-intelligence laptop methods ought to learn Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel “Frankenstein” and ask themselves what sort of a monster we could have created. (“In case your telephone had emotions would you deal with it in another way? It may occur prior to you suppose,” Opinion, Jan. 2)
Many many years in the past, after I was a graduate scholar at UC San Diego, I used to be scuffling with a primitive laptop software program package deal. A professor informed me, “Bear in mind, Jack, the pc is meant to be your slave, not the opposite manner round.”
One could start to ask the query: Who’s serving whom?
Bear in mind the scene from Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 movie, “2001: A Area Odyssey,” the place the sentient laptop HAL refuses to let Dave reenter the ship? HAL concluded the mission was too essential to depend on people to finish it.
Prognosticators debate the ethics of sentient AI versus the potential dangers of the computer systems taking up. My speculation: They have already got. Most individuals simply haven’t realized it but.
Jack Debes, Santa Monica
..
To the editor: Brian Kateman’s opinion piece distilled the challenges that AI poses for humanity. We carbon-based life varieties are creating silicon-based life varieties and are up to now ill-prepared for the results.
Our ethical code and ethics could be a information, and but our observe report with different carbon-based life varieties (chickens, hogs, cows and so forth) doesn’t construct confidence that we’ll meet this new problem efficiently.
The important thing distinction? Chickens don’t management our future. AI is being given entry to all the things people have ever discovered and created.
We’re blindly giving AI management over our lives and livelihood one click on at a time. Prefer it or not, AI life varieties will quickly (in 10 years, possibly fewer?) make judgments earlier than doing what we would like them to do. Solely then, when our instructions flip into conversations, will we understand what we’ve misplaced.
Merrill Anderson, Laguna Seashore
..
To the editor: In case you want extra fantasies and delusions within the new yr, Kateman requires the necessity to construct a relationship with know-how (morally talking) and forestall “struggling” on the a part of robots that will consequence if we don’t.
He writes: “Possibly some extent will come sooner or later the place now we have broadly accepted proof that robots can certainly suppose and really feel. But when we wait to even entertain the concept, think about all of the struggling that may have occurred within the meantime.”
No, of us, we can’t let these robots (of the long run) undergo. As for these poverty-stricken youngsters, effectively, we did what we may inside affordable limits.
Juan Bernal, Santa Ana
..
To the editor: A information article you latterly printed says most individuals have accepted AI.
Not me, and never my colleagues.
An Emmy-nominated author, I’ve seen my work devastated as if by a plague. For many years, I earned a snug revenue by writing unique songs and customized speeches. Now, nothing. Creativeness is out of date.
Who determined to place all artistic artists out of labor? And why received’t anyone do one thing about it?
Molly-Ann Leikin, Thousand Oaks
..
To the editor: I recommend we work on caring for the emotions of animals — and different people — earlier than even contemplating worrying in regards to the emotions of machines.
Thomas Bliss, Los Angeles
