So…Peter S. Jenkins is alive and well…it seems…and challenging my thoughts again. Now…I’ve only skimmed through this, and I honestly can’t decide if he’s gone mad or if he’s one of the genius future thinkers of our time!
I’m gonna have to have another go at it…but let me present you with: “Historical Simulations – Motivational, Ethical and Legal Issues”.
After skimming through it – I feel like I’m still not sure what he means with historical simulations and AIs! I mean…he starts off pretty boldly:
“The notion that the perceived world is an illusion or a simulation has arisen for centuries in the works of philosophers, mathematicians, and social scientists. A recent variant on this theme, posited by Nick Bostrom of the University of Oxford, is that it is possible that we are forms of artificial intelligence in an ancestor, (i.e. historical) simulation created by a future society.”
And then he gets me back to nodding – because he mentions McLuhan’s ‘rearview mirror effect’ and some of Castronova’s ideas of using ‘synthetic worlds’ but I suppose I’m just nodding from recognition – because my hair just rises up when he starts using words like apocalypse!
“In the event of apocalyptic events such as the release of malevolent genetically modified organisms or self-replicating nanobots, humans may want to completely download their consciousness into machines and forsake their physical bodies completely, in which case it would make sense to enhance the realism of the experience by erasing the memory of the download occuring in the first place as well as the horrific events that led up to it.”
I suppose this isn’t a new notion – that is after all what we keep talking about, isn’t it? But why only in occurance with the apocalypse? And from what I understand – this is where we become AI – which I can’t comprehend – although there is a relevant point there isn’t there?
And it’s this AI that he explores legaly – which is truely very interesting!
1. Would AI have the legal status of a person?
2. Would AI be considered as a vulnerable class of person?
3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
4. Publicity, privacy and copyright issues
Sorry for writing about something that I still don’t really get, but thought it deserved some attention here. I need to read through it again, better concentrated than just as ‘study break’ material.