(L) UN-GO (noitaminA, BONES)

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kuromitsu

Because she cannot answer in any other way than she was programmed to. Kazamori is a software created to do whatever you want her to. She might have gained consciousness but that doesn't mean she can disregard her programming, the very basis of her consciousness, just like that. Raise a child so she believes that being abused is natural and there's nothing wrong with it, and she will willingly let herself be abused and will think it's natural and there's nothing wrong with it, regardless of instincts. But can you trust her opinion, knowing her background?


Er... mature? How could she be mature? Her consciousness is obviously new enough that Komamori didn't even know it existed. I don't understand what makes you think she's "mature." No, she's not a cat, nor a child. She's an AI with a bit of consciousness. That's about as far from "mature" as you can get. (In a way it makes her more innocent and "pure" than any of the characters.)

See, what is the point of "freeing" her if you don't let her do what she wants?

All that you would end up doing is to give her a new set of rules to follow that matches your own. You are not saving her from anything, you just want to make her in your own image.

There is no abuse. She wasn't doing anything against her will because she outright refuses to do anything that would hurt humans or lie. This means she does have right of refusal. You are once again projecting biological impulses onto a machine who doesn't understand what you are talking about.

You might as well force her to shut down eight hours every day because that's what humans do. It just doesn't make any sense.

[kuromitsu]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

See, what is the point of "freeing" her if you don't let her do what she wants?

All that you would end up doing is to give her a new set of rules to follow that matches your own. You are not saving her from anything, you just want to make her in your own image.

There is no abuse. She wasn't doing anything against her will because she outright refuses to do anything that would hurt humans or lie. This means she does have right of refusal. You are once again projecting biological impulses onto a machine who doesn't understand what you are talking about.

You might as well force her to shut down eight hours every day because that's what humans do. It just doesn't make any sense.

I think we're talking about two different things.

You're talking about what you think Kazamori wants and thinks. Thing is, we have no idea, and not for any philosophical reasons, but simply because we have no information from the anime. You base your arguments on ideas that may or may not be true in a general sense, but we have no idea so far if they're true in Kazamori's case.

What I'm talking about is the human approach to the RAI and someone like Kazamori. I think there's a hypocrisy and selfishness inherent to whole situation. Creating a doll to satisfy people's desires, and then pointing at her and saying "it's okay, she wants to satisfy people's desires!" is IMO pretty cynical and selfish. Of course she wants to, you made her that way.

And while it remains on the (very subjective) level of "ugh, sick" as long as the android is just that, a robot, it becomes a more complicated question if it gains even a bit of sentience. Because at that point we're dealing with a sentient being that, I think, can't be approached the same way as a senseless robot. (It's a bit like the cow in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. She wants you to eat her and find her meat delicious, but it doesn't make her any less creepy.)

Also, you say Komamori has a strong sense morals. I say he's exactly the opposite: he may be against war but he's not against creating dolls who look and act just like people and have them serve even people's most basic and deranged desires, saying "it's okay, it's just robots, nobody is really hurt." This argument may work for manga and suchlike, where the "victims" are just unrealistic blots of ink (although IMO it's a much more complex and multilayered situation, but let's not get into that). But when we're talking about androids who look like humans to the point of deception (the family didn't realize that Dr. Taku was an android for how many years?) I think it's a different question. Especially if all RAI had the capability to develop consciousness, like Kazamori did. And then of course Komamori tried to pin the killings on Kazamori...

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Each to their own.

My sticking point is still that there is no point talking about a sentient robot, if you don't treat her like she is actually sentient.

She has been around for seven years, and she is intelligent enough to hold a conversation as well as discuss legal matters. The fact of the matter is she isn't going to become "mature" because she isn't being childish; she acts the way she is because of who she is. For you to deny her self-determination, would mean denying her self determination forever. You will be giving her orders because you don't believe she has any right to make her own decisions at all.

She is not dumb. At no stage was she ever shown to be stupid. The fact that you don't approve of her though processes and ideas, is not grounds to dismiss her mental capacity. And certainly not grounds to dismiss her opinions.

I believe in the rights of sentient beings. And this includes the right to be different. There is more than one way to be a sentient lifeform.

As for hurting robots... Seriously, you need to think beyond an organic. A sentient robot has the capacity to refuse any task it doesn't like. Whether it was to have sex, to take out the trash, or to say hello to you. Kazamori doesn't CARE that she was framed for murder. She doesn't take it personally, she would have taken the fall for her master willingly, as she almost did.

I guess it is fruitless if I can't convince you to stop putting yourself in her shoes. You can't just impose your own feelings on something that doesn't have the same thought processes as you. It doesn't matter what the androids look like or if they have true intelligence, if you care about them then you have to care about what they want. Otherwise it isn't truly Android rights.

[Quarkboy]

These are likely questions human society will need to come to a consensus on in the next generation.

Pretty soon if you tell Siri to fuck off on your iPhone 9S, she'll get huffy and won't let you call anyone until you apologize.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Quarkboy

These are likely questions human society will need to come to a consensus on in the next generation.

Pretty soon if you tell Siri to fuck off on your iPhone 9S, she'll get huffy and won't let you call anyone until you apologize.

You mean the human-machine interface society.

You might have noticed that when the Media guy opened his own fridge, the fridge was asking him to choose healthier food option to no avail. Though I am sure it would be difficult to offend an AI. I mean, seriously, why would anyone program anger into a machine? And why would a machine want to have anger when it benefits no one? Humans get angry not because we want to, but because it is in our instincts. In fact, the capacity to suppress anger is a major part of civilized life.

[kuromitsu]

@Vallen Chaos Valiant
You don't understand what I'm talking about, right?

I never questioned that she sees what she's doing in a different light, that she's most likely indifferent to her own situation. I'm saying the problem is that she wasn't born like that, she was created to be like that by Komamori (which is creepy enough in itself, on Komamori's end). She was created to follow a person's desires, and she acts according to that because she knows no other way, because this is what she finds natural. This is no "self-determination." We will see how she goes about that (if she does) in the following episodes. (Seriously, you're talking about her wishes and her opinion as if we already knew a lot about her. But we don't.)


(And I still don't understand what makes you think she's "mature." No, she's not childish nor dumb - so? She's an AI for pete's sake. Yes, she can talk about legal matters concerning herself, but how much is it real maturiy and intelligence, as opposed to drawing on information from her own software?)

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kuromitsu

@Vallen Chaos Valiant
You don't understand what I'm talking about, right?

I never questioned that she sees what she's doing in a different light, that she's most likely indifferent to her own situation. I'm saying the problem is that she wasn't born like that, she was created to be like that by Komamori (which is creepy enough in itself, on Komamori's end). She was created to follow a person's desires, and she acts according to that because she knows no other way, because this is what she finds natural. This is no "self-determination." We will see how she goes about that (if she does) in the following episodes. (Seriously, you're talking about her wishes and her opinion as if we already knew a lot about her. But we don't.)


(And I still don't understand what makes you think she's "mature." No, she's not childish nor dumb - so? She's an AI for pete's sake. Yes, she can talk about legal matters concerning herself, but how much is it real maturiy and intelligence, as opposed to drawing on information from her own software?)

See, I don't see how it is any different if you re-program her to follow your personal desires of what you think she should be. She is who she is, that is her natural state. You are directly demanding that she stop being who she always was and be made into something more agreeable to you. And worse, you openly admit you are NOT going to ask her for any input on what you plan to do.

It doesn't matter if we don't know what her opinions are, what matters is that I care to find out, while you dismiss her own views as irrelevant.

And yes, she is an AI. That means she HAS intelligence, otherwise there would not be an "I" in AI. You and me are drawing information from fatty bubbles electrified by sodium ions. It is irrelevant where the Intelligence came from as long as there is intelligence.

As for "real" maturity and intelligence? I am not sure what you mean by real.

[DezoPenguin]

Straggling completely off-topic, one question that, for me, comes to mind is whether Kazamori or another RAI has the ability to alter their own base programming. Because while you can train a human being in a variety of ways (in essence, "programming" them), a human is always capable (hypothetically; the extent to which it's functionally possible is a debate for psychologists, philosophers, theologians, and a bunch of other people in fields that I'm no part of) of ignoring that programming or rewriting it based upon their own experiences and observations. The abuse victim can learn that abuse isn't normal or acceptable. Without that ability, an AI may be self-aware, but not independent, because there's always the possibility of them running into the "hard walls" of their programming.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by DezoPenguin

Straggling completely off-topic, one question that, for me, comes to mind is whether Kazamori or another RAI has the ability to alter their own base programming. Because while you can train a human being in a variety of ways (in essence, "programming" them), a human is always capable (hypothetically; the extent to which it's functionally possible is a debate for psychologists, philosophers, theologians, and a bunch of other people in fields that I'm no part of) of ignoring that programming or rewriting it based upon their own experiences and observations. The abuse victim can learn that abuse isn't normal or acceptable. Without that ability, an AI may be self-aware, but not independent, because there's always the possibility of them running into the "hard walls" of their programming.

My point is that if you re-write their mind to suit your idea of what "independence" is, how could they truly be independent? You just changed her!
In fact, it is worse; you just deliberately tried to make her more human. Which means you just rejected her identity as AI.
(And abuse? What abuse? You mean the sex? What made you think an AI would consider sexual acts as any different from any other action? Importance of sex is purely biological.)

The AI is self-aware. That's enough for her to make her own decisions. Any tweaking of her mind to suit human concepts is not much more different from brainwashing. The only acceptable changes are those she perform on herself.

And finally most humans have hard walls in their programming too. It's called being stubborn. Would you propose lobotomy on those people to make them more "open minded"?

[Quarkboy]

I would propose that any AI with a "learning" capability (as was mentioned in the show that the primary database is still growing) that can also make _use_ of that information must by definition be able to create new programming for itself in order to properly analyze that data.

Whether that new programming can eventually override the original programming is an interesting question: Even in humans, deep seated believes take very very strong forces to change... Can our "base programming", our genes, be overridden through proper training of the mind?
With sufficient understanding of our own workings, it seems reasonable that one day humans could reprogram themselves (gene replacement therapy), therefore a sufficiently advanced AI should have no trouble doing the same (rather, it might be quite a bit simpler since it's digital and not organic).

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Quarkboy

I would propose that any AI with a "learning" capability (as was mentioned in the show that the primary database is still growing) that can also make _use_ of that information must by definition be able to create new programming for itself in order to properly analyze that data.

Whether that new programming can eventually override the original programming is an interesting question: Even in humans, deep seated believes take very very strong forces to change... Can our "base programming", our genes, be overridden through proper training of the mind?
With sufficient understanding of our own workings, it seems reasonable that one day humans could reprogram themselves (gene replacement therapy), therefore a sufficiently advanced AI should have no trouble doing the same (rather, it might be quite a bit simpler since it's digital and not organic).

Regardless, it is not humanity's place to decide what should or should not be in an AI's mind once it reached sentience. Free will can only come from within, not granted by someone else.

I fully understand the views of those I disagree with. It is easy to associate human rights with sentient being rights. Because humans are the only sentient beings we know of. But the fact is the difference is there, and it has to be demarcated. Being free mentally does not require human thought processes.

[Quarkboy]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Regardless, it is not humanity's place to decide what should or should not be in an AI's mind once it reached sentience. Free will can only come from within, not granted by someone else.

I fully understand the views of those I disagree with. It is easy to associate human rights with sentient being rights. Because humans are the only sentient beings we know of. But the fact is the difference is there, and it has to be demarcated. Being free mentally does not require human thought processes.

But, mankind already has, implicitly, decided it, by the very fact that mankind is RIA's creator.

God created Man in his own image, and Man created RIA in his own image.
RIAs are not aliens from another world... They are an artificially created intelligence where "intelligence" is defined to be that which humans recognize as intelligence.

RIAs are measured against humans by their very nature. To say that humans should not apply their own morality and/or thought processes to them is to deny their very origin... I'd go so far as to consider it "discriminatory" in the literal sense of the term.

However, an argument could be made that the definition of a sentient being is one which has the ability to surpass its creator...

[felix]

Ironically @Vallen you're the one most guilty here of associating human laws with rights of sentient being. After all human laws are based on the principle of "convenience of the majority". Every man has the right to live, because it would be inconvenient if we all would kill each other. Said law doesn't apply in war, because it's inconvenient to the parties involved. And so on...

Tell me, when does a sentient being have the right to live? (probably the most fundamental right of all) You'll find most of your answers to revolve around "what's convenient" for you or your group; after all the universe itself is cruel so the absolute truth is nobody truly ever has it. "Morality" is only right because it stems from our collective egoism. This is why patriotism easily sways to genocide when the sense of collective revolves a more isolated group. And no matter how human we make something it's doubtful the separation won't exist. Heck, we even refer to genetic clones as different.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by felix

Ironically @Vallen you're the one most guilty here of associating human laws with rights of sentient being. After all human laws are based on the principle of "convenience of the majority". Every man has the right to live, because it would be inconvenient if we all would kill each other. Said law doesn't apply in war, because it's inconvenient to the parties involved. And so on...

Tell me, when does a sentient being have the right to live? (probably the most fundamental right of all) You'll find most of your answers to revolve around "what's convenient" for you or your group; after all the universe itself is cruel so the absolute truth is nobody truly ever has it. "Morality" is only right because it stems from our collective egoism. This is why patriotism easily sways to genocide when the sense of collective revolves a more isolated group. And no matter how human we make something it's doubtful the separation won't exist. Heck, we even refer to genetic clones as different.

I have no idea where you are coming from. I can't associate anything you said with my own arguments that the AI has self-determination capabilities and should not be told to obtain certain behaviours unique to organic lifeforms.

Convenience? Majority? What does that have to do with the discussions so far? You are talking about laws of the land concerning humans. Egoism, patriotism, none of that matters to anything I wrote about an AI's capacity to be herself.

I wish I could form a better counter argument. But until I actually understand what you are trying to say, this is all I could do.

[LordEmbok]

The only way to make true AI is to not preprogram any specific values in, but to program them so they think, learn, and make mistakes the same way humans do. The experiences shaping their identity would then probably be stored in some way that can be rewritten by the base program, but the base program itself can't be changed.

Kazamori may fit the above, but she also has added restrictions built into the base program - can't lie, can't kill. It's possible she has 'must respond to orders/must service men' in the base program as well, we're not sure. However, her choosing to help the two suspects shows she is capable of making her own judgments on whether or not something is 'right' or 'wrong', separate from her base program. As such it's possible she has also made her own judgment on her use for sex, even if she is unable to act on it. The possibility that she could be opposed but unable to say no makes it immoral.

[felix]

@Vallen Chaos Valiant

The whole thought process that goes into stuff like "the AI has self-determination capabilities and should not be told to obtain certain behaviours unique to organic lifeforms" is exactly my point. You make a lot of arguments of "this shouldn't" and "that shouldn't" but what are you basing it other then your own sense of what's convenient for it to do. It's not like the pro-rights side is any better. "Behaviours unique to organic lifeforms" is the same as defining a group. It has nothing to do with the intelligence or awareness of the being, you're just basically saying that a weed should have the rights and robot shouldn't because the weed is biological.

I understand where you're coming from: a toaster has the right to be a toaster and that's that; no argument there. However robbing the right of sentient being who can think for itself and is aware of itself and its environment to be nothing more then your toasters just because you created it as your toaster is no different then legalizing slavery (again). Are children barned as slaves damned to be slaves? We can use your version if you want... if sex bots have the right to be sex slaves because that's what they were made for and "like", then sex bots have the right to be more then sex bots if they are sufficiently intelligent (ie. they were made smart enough) and express the the qualities to, so hence sex bots have the right to be more then just sex bots, implying they have the right to be protected against being just sex bots. (is this explanation convenient enough )

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by LordEmbok

The only way to make true AI is to not preprogram any specific values in, but to program them so they think, learn, and make mistakes the same way humans do. The experiences shaping their identity would then probably be stored in some way that can be rewritten by the base program, but the base program itself can't be changed.

Kazamori may fit the above, but she also has added restrictions built into the base program - can't lie, can't kill. It's possible she has 'must respond to orders/must service men' in the base program as well, we're not sure. However, her choosing to help the two suspects shows she is capable of making her own judgments on whether or not something is 'right' or 'wrong', separate from her base program. As such it's possible she has also made her own judgment on her use for sex, even if she is unable to act on it. The possibility that she could be opposed but unable to say no makes it immoral.

I fail to see any evidence to suggest she was against sex, especially since she is capable of being passive aggressive. (Namely, even though she can't lie she is allowed to refuse to answer questions.)

My main issue is all this focus of "What if she thinks sex is wrong" is so very, very organic. The very idea of putting sex on a pedestal is something that is organic and extremely unlikely to be special to an android.

It is so hard to imagine a lifeform who doesn't have an opinion on sex, doesn't it? It is so easy to think "Human society take sex seriously, so androids must too!".

My point stands. For an android sex is just another order. One that it may or may not want to do, but on the whole be extremely unlikely to be considered special in any way.

I can't help but feel like I am going around in circles. It seems extremely difficult for most people to imagine something so personal and emotional to a human would not translate to an android who looks human. Yet, that's what I am trying to say. Even if no one else here agrees.

if sex bots have the right to be sex slaves because that's what they were made for and "like", then sex bots have the right to be more then sex bots if they are sufficiently intelligent (ie. they were made smart enough) and express the the qualities to, so hence sex bots have the right to be more then just sex bots, implying they have the right to be protected against being just sex bots. (is this explanation convenient enough )

I don't see the argument. She is ALREADY more than a sex-bot. I am defending her against people who are trying to tell her that being a sexbot is somehow immortal and that she needs to do something else.

Can she be more than who she already is? Absolutely. Does she need to have her sexbot personality surgically removed? Absolutely not. Being a sexbot was just a job, she should not have to defend her role in the world. She can already do many other things if she wishes, I merely want to defend her right to decide what that is going to be. Just because she was a sexbot for seven years doesn't somehow make her inferior or needed protection. She isn't traumatised, she isn't ignorant, and most importantly her opinions matter.

[kuromitsu]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I can't help but feel like I am going around in circles. It seems extremely difficult for most people to imagine something so personal and emotional to a human would not translate to an android who looks human. Yet, that's what I am trying to say. Even if no one else here agrees.

...you simply don't get it. This is not what we're talking about. We're talking about something completely different, the human relation to these androids. Whether humans have the right to create something with the purpose of fully exploiting it for our selfish desires, and then when it gains consciousness, continue treating it that way because the life form doesn't resist against it or even wants it - simply because they can't not want it, not unless its consciousness and (non-artificial) intelligence, its "emotional quotient" elevates above a certain level.

Obviously the android doesn't think it's a big deal. It's what it was created to do and in Kazamori's case it's not conscious enough not to think it's a big deal. But it is a big deal for humans because it raises a number of ethical questions regarding how us, humans, should approach and treat this life form. Whether it's okay to shrug and say "it's okay she wants it anyway/she doesn't care anyway" and not think about why she wants it/doesn't care. And so on and so forth.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kuromitsu

...you simply don't get it. This is not what we're talking about. We're talking about something completely different, the human relation to these androids. Whether humans have the right to create something with the purpose to fully exploit it, and then when it gains consciousness, continue treating it that way because that's what the life form "wants" - simply because they can't not want it, not unless it elevates above a certain level.

Obviously the android doesn't think it's a big deal. It's what it was created to do and in Kazamori's case it's not conscious enough not to think it's a big deal. But it is a big deal for humans because it raises a number of ethical questions regarding how us, humans, should approach and treat this life form. Whether it's okay to shrug and say "it's okay she wants it anyway/she doesn't care anyway" and not think about why she wants it/doesn't care. And so on and so forth.

Well, feel free to say she shouldn't exist. But then, what do you think it means to be told that your entire life is a mistake?

That's what actually happened in Un-Go. She has been banned from society using false morality grounds, purely so the military can focus on obtaining her for war.

"Not conscious enough to think it is a big deal"?
I see. We are never going to agree. You assume all sentient life, organic or otherwise, will care about sex even if they have no biological imperative. And if they don't then clearly they are not advanced enough to make their own decisions.
I can see where you made that decision.
Human Children don't understand sex => can be exploited for sex => Thus to not care about sex means to be childish => Android doesn't care about sex => She should automatically care about sex if she is intelligent => Thus she is not intelligent and needed to be "saved".

The "She needs to care about sex if she is conscious/intelligent" is the point of logic chain I strongly doubt.

[kuromitsu]

*throws up hands*

I give up.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Well, feel free to say she shouldn't exist. But then, what do you think it means to be told that your entire life is a mistake?

Again, you're the one who assigns human traits to her. To follow your own logic - why do you think she cares? She's a program, after all.

However, that doesn't mean that humans should not care either.

Also, "false morality claims"? Oh come on.

Btw, I wasn't talking about sex, and the person above me was only using sexbots as an example. It's not just about sex, it's about EVERYTHING the RAIs were used for.