From: Gary Miller (garymiller@starband.net)
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 23:13:59 MST
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky said:
"Okay, so we should have extreme regard for the individual legal rights
of
babies? Incidentally, I think that while parents having control of
children is often bad, having nonparents or governmental entities
interfering is worse. I don't say that it's none of my business; I say
that my goal of protecting the child is best served by protecting the
child from governers, not protecting the child from parents. It's not a
perfect solution, though. I would - for example - look favorably on
someone who released software that children could use to bypass parental
restrictions on Internet access; I couldn't be on the child's side if I
thought the child was the parent's property. My theory here is that the
child has full sentient rights, that a parent who shares 1/2 the child's
DNA is statistically more likely to protect that child than a governer
who
shares none of the child's DNA, and that the child, who shares 1.0 of
the
child's DNA, is the best decider of all..."
I don't understand this at all! Government only attempts to interfere
when a child's safety,
Or well being is at jeopardy. The above writing sounds like children
should be able to make their
own decision as to read pornography, take drugs, and chat with
pedophiles before they are
emotionally and intellectually equipped to protect themselves.
Sometimes it is the parents they need protected from and then it's the
governments job to protect them if the parent fail in their
responseability. Who shares the childs DNA is irrelevant, it is who is
morally and mentally equipped to take responseability for the child's
welfare until they are equipped
themselves!
This same type of stewardship should be taken to protect an AGI from
exploitation or
corruption until it is morally and mentally equipped to take
responseability for
it's own welfare!
I don't think protecting and nurturing an entity to help it grow into a
healthy, happy, mature
being is the same as enslaving it. Quite the opposite in fact!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST