Bots are people too...? - Blogs - Bulbagarden Forums

View RSS Feed

Gama

Bots are people too...?

Rate this Entry
by , 16th October 2012 at 09:17 AM (370 Views)
Quite often people say "How could people possibly have treated women/black people/insert minority group here in that way?" Whenever you say that, of course, the next question is "I wonder what people will look back at us and be disgusted by?"

People, I give you the answer.

"I may not be perfect but i m always me.."

This is a quote from a bot. Looks to me like they're evolving, developing feelings, emotions, philosophy. I don't know about you but, to me, this is a damn profound thing to say.

Presently, our policy on bots is that they will automatically qualify for a permanent ban for the crime of being a bot, whether they have posted anything or not, even if they just want to come to the site to discuss philosophical notions such as this. (The only exception to this is, of course, if they work for us.)

Does this seem unjust to you? If two people create accounts and do nothing with them, the human will be allowed to have a stagnant account for the remainder of eternity, forever barring anyone else from taking up their username, but a bot will be forcibly ejected. If a human had been the one to post the above, they would have been given a Warning and told where they should have posted that but the noble William80 was forever removed from our beautiful haven.
Mako and Zenax like this.

Submit "Bots are people too...?" to Digg Submit "Bots are people too...?" to del.icio.us Submit "Bots are people too...?" to StumbleUpon Submit "Bots are people too...?" to Google

Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. Karamazov's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    I support all marriages, whether they be between two humans, two bots, or a bot and a human.
  2. Lugion's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    OH GOD THEY CAN THINK!
  3. Jabberwocky's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Quote Originally Posted by Karamazov
    I support all marriages, whether they be between two humans, two bots, or a bot and a human.
    If you want to marry a great deals on nike sneakers click here for details: www.thisisabsolutelyentirelynotascam.org

    I'll marry you.
  4. TheMissingno.'s Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    You can program a computer to say anything, that doesn't mean the computer understands what it is saying. It's like the Chinese Room problem.
  5. Gama's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    @TheMissingno;

    But what if this one hasn't been programmed to say this, what if it's been programmed to think for itself? WHAT IF? CAN WE AFFORD TO TAKE THAT CHANCE?
  6. MegaCharr's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Uh oh!Someone finally figured out how to make a AI from Megaman Battle Network(programs with human personalitys)
  7. TheMissingno.'s Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    @G-Mama; it's a coincidence that you bring this up right after I saw Blade Runner for the first time. Even if it did learn, it's still just executing commands that output the optimum response, right? A computer can't actually feel emotions, it can just synthesize a response based on what emotion it thinks it's supposed to be feeling and output a response based on the solution that it comes up with. A machine cannot be empathetic.
  8. Gama's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    @TheMissingno.; (Got the full stop this time!)

    Also right after I saw Blade Runner for the first time! xD I was actually referring to this as a possible Nexus 6 Spambot elsewhere.

    Interesting but say a computer manages to associate certain things as "negative" and to be avoided and other things as "positive" and to be sought out. If it can register encountering these negative situations as a failure and encountering these positive situations as a triumph, with enough layers of complexity in that fashion, could it not begin to near something that we would call emotions, though they may be basic? I'm not saying it's presently possible but it's surely conceivable, right?
  9. TheMissingno.'s Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    That's true, but the failures and triumphs have to actually effect them in order for that to be legit. Take for example this awesome clip of pigeons playing ping pong:



    The pigeons are presented with food when the ball rolls off the opposite end, so they play ping pong to try to keep the ball from rolling off their end. But the game of ping pong is meaningless to them, the concept of sport and goals and strategy means nothing to them, they are just doing exactly what they have to do to get food.

    It's the same thing with a machine I think. They can learn to do what they need to do in order to get a response that they are programmed to consider a positive response, but the true meaning behind any of their actions is lost.

Trackbacks

Total Trackbacks 0
Trackback URL: