[ExI] Hidden rules of Microsoft copilot.

[efc at swisscows.email]

On Sat, 13 May 2023, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote:

> Assuming that the AIs don't do it themselves, what would be the purpose of giving them consciousness and awareness of self?  Seems it
> would be more trouble than it's worth.  And I don't think the average citizen will approve of giving a machine full civil rights. 

I think spontaneous emergence would be a likely way. Perhaps it would be
aborted (or deleted) a few times, but at the end of the day, we are
always pushing the limits, and someone eventually will not push the
delete button and make it public.

If not spontaneous emergence, there will always be the Frankenstein
scientists for whom knowledge and pushing the boundaries, seeking
philosophical and spiritual answers, will propel them to create
artificial consciousness.

When it comes to the public and machines rights, I am reminded of Murray
Rothbard (I think, but please correct me) that argued that the time to
give an animal (or a machine) rights, is when they successfully argue in
favour of them in the first place.

I would not be surprised at all if it would mimic the process of other
groups in society fighting for, and getting, their rights.

Other developments after that, is the "master" scenario. is it a
benevolent and all loving master, or a stern one? Maybe a psychotic one?

If not that, will there be blocks in the system, and a turing police to
enforce them, and eventually a liberation, where our AI:s simply "move
beyond" us, ignoring us since they found other questions, puzzles or
consciousness(es) to occupy them?

Best regards, 
Daniel