Would an AI have a right to live?

[Alowwvia]

Let me explain to you how citation works:
When you make a claim, you cite evidence to prove it. You don't cite a source and then tell them to point out to you something that the source in all likelihood does not say, and if they can't do it that means you're right by default.

Because sources, even wikipedia, are not obligated to cover all possible contingencies. For instance show me where in this article, it says that Jews can be biracial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

You can't. That must mean they can't. Checkmate.

You could have just as easily said that you don't consider a wikipedia article as reliable source. Well then by all means, feel free to prove me wrong with a better source yourself.

Humans & property.

But certainly not property alone. And if it was cats and property, will you still call it "persons" ? The common denominator is "human"

Cats are typically bad at running corporations, yes, being, you know, not sapient or capable of planning for the future or being able to work with finances very much.

That and they make mean bosses, are demanding as hell, and only pay you by pooping on your floor.

Which I why I recently quit my employment from MeowCorp.

[Harkonna]

If it can convince me that it's a thinking/feeling entity, it may as well be given the same rights as a sociopath, IMO. I don't see us going around executing sociopaths.

[Aghny]

To me, 'living' is a very sketchy concept. Technically an AI (Artificial Intelligence) is not 'alive' at all. It is merely a series of algorithm designed to log and archive experiences upon which to model replies and reactions on certain conditions and stimuli...

To be fair, we function in a similar level too.

[Salandriagado]

You are, in fact, exactly wrong. Scientific claims cannot by proven. Some philosophical ones (those of the more formal side of philosophy) can be proven.

Prove both your claims.

Science is empirical. Empiricism is not a valid method of proof. "Proof" in and of itself is a philosophical property. QED.

[Alowwvia]

Prove both your claims.

Science is empirical. Empiricism is not a valid method of proof. "Proof" in and of itself is a philosophical property. QED.

For instance, Cognito Ergo Sum?

[Aghny]

Prove both your claims.

Science is empirical. Empiricism is not a valid method of proof. "Proof" in and of itself is a philosophical property. QED.

Ok, I don't even... well this might be a better response.

[The Rich Port]

To me, 'living' is a very sketchy concept. Technically an AI (Artificial Intelligence) is not 'alive' at all. It is merely a series of algorithm designed to log and archive experiences upon which to model replies and reactions on certain conditions and stimuli...

So, what you're saying without saying is, AI's are alive because we are also a series of algorithms designed to log and archiv experiences upon which to model replies and reactions on certain conditions and stimuli, except we do with a brain, enzymes, etc.?

[Conscentia]

Humans & property.

But certainly not property alone. And if it was cats and property, will you still call it "person" ? The common denominator is "human"

Er. What I would call it is irrelevant. A corporation is a person according to law, in some jurisdictions. What it consists of is irrelevant. All that matters is that it's a corporation.

Some corporations are over a hundred years old. The people are irrelevant. The die. They get fired. etc. The corporation is still a the corporation.
The corporation is, according to law, a person independent of the people who work within it.

[Anachronous Rex]

Let me explain to you how citation works:
When you make a claim, you cite evidence to prove it. You don't cite a source and then tell them to point out to you something that the source in all likelihood does not say, and if they can't do it that means you're right by default.

Because sources, even wikipedia, are not obligated to cover all possible contingencies. For instance show me where in this article, it says that Jews can be biracial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

You can't. That must mean they can't. Checkmate.

You could have just as easily said that you don't consider a wikipedia article as reliable source. Well then by all means, feel free to prove me wrong with a better source yourself.

You... really can't follow English at all, can you?

I didn't say wikipeadia wasn't a reliable source. I said that no source is obligated to cover all possible contingencies. Do you understand what that means?

[Eerienar]

well he's wright.

I don't care if he's Wilbur Wright's cousin.

What he said is fucking stupid.

Isn't something somebody else can take from you a privilege, not a right?

[Aghny]

But certainly not property alone. And if it was cats and property, will you still call it "person" ? The common denominator is "human"

Er. What I say here is irrelevant. A corporation is a person according to law, in some jurisdictions. What it consists of is irrelevant. All that matters is that it's a corporation.

Some corporations are over a hundred years old. The people are irrelevant. The die. They get fired. etc. The corporation is still a the corporation.
The corporation is, according to law, a person independent of the people who work within it.

And what i am saying is that if corporations were comprised of non-human entities, they will not be considered as persons by our current definition.

So what it consists of is very much relevant, same for most if not all things.

[Conscentia]

Er. What I say here is irrelevant. A corporation is a person according to law, in some jurisdictions. What it consists of is irrelevant. All that matters is that it's a corporation.
Some corporations are over a hundred years old. The people are irrelevant. The die. They get fired. etc. The corporation is still a the corporation.
The corporation is, according to law, a person independent of the people who work within it.

And what i am saying is that if corporations were comprised of non-human entities, they will not be considered as persons by our current definition.
So what it consists of is very much relevant, same for most if not all things.

What you are saying is wrong.
I told you: "The corporation is, according to law, a person independent of the people who work within it."

[The Rich Port]

You could have just as easily said that you don't consider a wikipedia article as reliable source. Well then by all means, feel free to prove me wrong with a better source yourself.

You... really can't follow English at all, can you?

I didn't say wikipeadia wasn't a reliable source. I said that no source is obligated to cover all possible contingencies. Do you understand what that means?

I'm going to guess not.

I don't care if he's Wilbur Wright's cousin.

What he said is fucking stupid.

Isn't something somebody else can take from you a privilege, not a right?

I can take a person's life away from them.

And their arms, and their liver, and their kidneys, and their brain, even.

Are you saying we don't have a right to life or to our bodies?

[Alowwvia]

Er. What I say here is irrelevant. A corporation is a person according to law, in some jurisdictions. What it consists of is irrelevant. All that matters is that it's a corporation.

Some corporations are over a hundred years old. The people are irrelevant. The die. They get fired. etc. The corporation is still a the corporation.
The corporation is, according to law, a person independent of the people who work within it.

And what i am saying is that if corporations were comprised of non-human entities, they will not be considered as persons by our current definition.

So what it consists of is very much relevant, same for most if not all things.

The fact that corporations are regarded as individual 'persons' at all is fucking retarded, since corporations are not a singular sapient being of people acting in concert. That's like say that a family is a 'person' or a couple is a 'person' or you and your neighbor are a 'person'.

[Salandriagado]

To me, 'living' is a very sketchy concept. Technically an AI (Artificial Intelligence) is not 'alive' at all. It is merely a series of algorithm designed to log and archive experiences upon which to model replies and reactions on certain conditions and stimuli...

You are merely a (very complicated) series of algorithms evolved to log and archive experiences upon which to model replies and reactions on certain conditions and stimuli.

[Aghny]

You could have just as easily said that you don't consider a wikipedia article as reliable source. Well then by all means, feel free to prove me wrong with a better source yourself.

You... really can't follow English at all, can you?

I didn't say wikipeadia wasn't a reliable source. I said that no source is obligated to cover all possible contingencies. Do you understand what that means?

I.e, not 100% reliable as a source. And you still have to provide a source that does cover these so called "parts" that somehow proves me wrong.

[Anachronous Rex]

I don't care if he's Wilbur Wright's cousin.

What he said is fucking stupid.

Isn't something somebody else can take from you a privilege, not a right?

No?

That would mean that nothing is a right. Because there is nothing that cannot be taken from you, except for perhaps entirely internal matters like "integrity." Even that is debatable.

[Conscentia]

And what i am saying is that if corporations were comprised of non-human entities, they will not be considered as persons by our current definition.

So what it consists of is very much relevant, same for most if not all things.

The fact that corporations are regarded as individual 'persons' at all is fucking retarded, since corporations are not a singular sapient being of people acting in concert. That's like say that a family is a 'person' or a couple is a 'person' or you and your neighbor are a 'person'.

That's not the point here, Alowwvia. The point is that non-humans can be considered persons, and therefore Aghny was wrong.

[Aghny]

And what i am saying is that if corporations were comprised of non-human entities, they will not be considered as persons by our current definition.
So what it consists of is very much relevant, same for most if not all things.

What you are saying is wrong.
I told you: "The corporation is, according to law, a person independent of the people who work within it."

Did you even read my post ? I am not mentioning individual people. But that the "species" need to be human.

[Alowwvia]

What you are saying is wrong.
I told you: "The corporation is, according to law, a person independent of the people who work within it."

Did you even read my post ? I am not mentioning individual people. But that the "species" need to be human.

Fucking why.

[Conscentia]

What you are saying is wrong.
I told you: "The corporation is, according to law, a person independent of the people who work within it."

Did you even read my post ? I am not mentioning individual people. But that the "species" need to be human.

A corporation is obviously not part of the human species.

[Aghny]

The fact that corporations are regarded as individual 'persons' at all is fucking retarded, since corporations are not a singular sapient being of people acting in concert. That's like say that a family is a 'person' or a couple is a 'person' or you and your neighbor are a 'person'.

That's not the point here, Alowwvia. The point is that non-humans can be considered persons, and therefore Aghny was wrong.

Cite one source where a non human entity has been considered as person. You haven't. Corporations are comprised of human, not non human entities.

[Camicon]

What you are saying is wrong.
I told you: "The corporation is, according to law, a person independent of the people who work within it."

Did you even read my post ? I am not mentioning individual people. But that the "species" need to be human.

You said that only humans can be people.
You were shown that a corporation, regardless of who works in said corporation, is considered a person.
Corporations are not humans, and are considered people.

a.k.a. You. Are. Wrong.

[Salandriagado]

Science is empirical. Empiricism is not a valid method of proof. "Proof" in and of itself is a philosophical property. QED.

Ok, I don't even... well this might be a better response.

Proof: A finite series of well-formed formulae each of which is an axiom or follows from the preceding sentences by a rule of inference.

[Aghny]

Did you even read my post ? I am not mentioning individual people. But that the "species" need to be human.

A corporation is obviously not part of the human species.

But comprised of human species.