To the editor: Those that are involved about hurting the sentiments of sentient artificial-intelligence laptop methods ought to learn Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel “Frankenstein” and ask themselves what sort of a monster we might have created. (“If your phone had feelings would you treat it differently? It could happen sooner than you think,” Opinion, Jan. 2)
Many a long time in the past, once I was a graduate scholar at UC San Diego, I used to be fighting a primitive laptop software program package deal. A professor instructed me, “Keep in mind, Jack, the pc is meant to be your slave, not the opposite means round.”
One might start to ask the query: Who’s serving whom?
Keep in mind the scene from Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 movie, “2001: A House 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 on. 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 thus far ill-prepared for the results.
Our ethical code and ethics is usually a information, and but our monitor report with different carbon-based life varieties (chickens, hogs, cows and so forth) doesn’t construct confidence that we are going to meet this new problem efficiently.
The important thing distinction? Chickens don’t management our future. AI is being given entry to all the pieces 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, perhaps fewer?) make judgments earlier than doing what we wish 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 12 months, Kateman requires the necessity to construct a relationship with know-how (morally talking) and stop “struggling” on the a part of robots that will end result if we don’t.
He writes: “Perhaps a degree will come sooner or later the place we’ve extensively accepted proof that robots can certainly assume and really feel. But when we wait to even entertain the concept, think about all of the struggling that can have occurred within the meantime.”
No, people, we can’t let these robots (of the long run) endure. As for these poverty-stricken youngsters, nicely, we did what we might inside cheap limits.
Juan Bernal, Santa Ana
..
To the editor: A news article you recently published 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 earnings by writing unique songs and customized speeches. Now, nothing. Creativeness is out of date.
Who determined to place all inventive artists out of labor? And why gained’t anyone do one thing about it?
Molly-Ann Leikin, Thousand Oaks
..
To the editor: I counsel we work on caring for the sentiments of animals — and different people — earlier than even contemplating worrying concerning the emotions of machines.
Thomas Bliss, Los Angeles
