This is exhausting.

solarpunk-aesthetic:

Over the past few days, I’ve had a post about how humans are generous by nature get a reply that “the promise of utopia is exactly what justifies mass homicide.” I’ve had a post about how science can help improve the world get me told that people like me “don’t know shit about what they eat or where it comes from.”

Nasty comments and talk of atrocities? Why are people like this? Why do things like these even cross people’s minds? I’m starting to wonder whether I’m wrong about humanity after all.

I made this blog as a reason to be optimistic. But the commentary over the past few days has been really depressing, and that’s not what I’m here for.

I’m taking a break.

I’m glad you’re back. I don’t even remotely know how solarpunk creates disastrous imagery; but I also get my fair share of regressive hatred. You fight hatred with aggressive kindness. Do not show weakness or remorse, whenever it comes to loving humanity and supporting everyone.

Regarding the previous ask: if neural network rehabilitation, recoding, updating, and decommissioning the entire generation are options that individual robot could choose, what if it chooses to decommission the entire generation, even if it’s against the will of the other AI (like suicide bombing)? Or should that choice to be decommissioned only apply to the individual level? And what if it chooses neither of those options? There could still be a risk of another incident happening.

Choice for decommissioning was more of a high probability human response to a high rate of robot death incidents. But as an option it would be ideally on a personal level or voted upon a robot level. Of course this would only apply to that generation of robot. Hopefully it never gets to the point of decommissioning though: it’s more of a last result type thing I would hope never happens on the sentient level of development.

Let’s pitch a scenario: Say, 10 sentient robots work for a company. One of them kills/injures a human. Even if no one else know whether this was accidental or on purpose, who is at fault? The robot, the company, or the programmer? AI aren’t humans, so could you even sue the robot? Or do you sue the company/programmer? And is it fair to decommission and shut down all 10 robots?

Hypothetically speaking, if they are sentient they have choice, and just like any current human scenario: the individual would then be responsible. And likewise any coworkers (the other nine robots) be subjected to psych evaluations to make sure they’re coping to the trauma okay.
Again just like in a current human model if the murder happened in the workplace the company would also be at fault for faulty security and hiring practices, but ultimately, the individual is responsible for their own choices.
If it becomes a trend, like school shootings in America for example, then society as a whole should work together, AI and humans alike, to find out why this is happening and prevent it in further instances, rather then keep blaming the individual, and look for the underlying cause. That’s the ideal situation, especially since sentience is involve. But as I’ve said before, judging sentient beings is a moral grey area: there would be advocates for recoding programs, or neural network rehabilitation, updating, or to decommission the particular generation.
Neural network rehabilitation would be the most humane option; to humans this would seem like brainwashing, but to an AI it is how they learn fundamental laws and rules of the world (at least to our contemporary understanding), and would allow them to refine their regulatory functions: this would be like implementing a gun registered class every gun owner would have to take yearly to prevent shootings. Recoding would rewrite the individual, and create a new but nearly identical AI, not humane: this is like euthanizing a person and raising their child. Updating would force physical limitations on the robot which would destroy their ability to effectively choose, but it would also prevent them from committing crimes: this may also cause problems if it conflicts with other protocols. And decommissioning the generation is the equivalent to genocide because one robot committed murder: literally fucking evil. And again ideally any of these options would be opt-in, meaning the AI decides if it wants to undergo the process. Realistically however, humans would shoot for the update or recode method first to try and stave off any further murders. And they’d probably do it by force using a nearby wireless network.

Honestly, my hopes is that I can help prevent any unjustified murders on part of any member of society by contributing to their socialization as a positive role model. And also acclimate humans to the notion that any race, health range, religion, class, AI and sentient robots are all deserving of compassion and sympathy. It’ll be a rough journey, but hey it’s worth it if I can help at least one being.