Would an AI have a right to live?

[Aghny]

This entire thread is a fuck-up with semantics that dodge the central point.

The scenario listed is this:

An AI become sapient. This doesn't mean it can mimic human thought patterns or some shit, but that it follows Cognito Ergo Sum. Think about yourself for a minute: You are a thinker. You perceive the world around you, and think thoughts, and are. You are.

Machines, and most animals to our knowledge, are not. They don't have the cognition to realize that they are an individual thinker that is actively perceiving reality, rather than simply reacting as part of your enviorment. To our knowledge, only humans, as far as we know, have the neurological hardware to pull this feat, to imagine and philosophize and ponder our own existence and selves.

However the hypothetical here states that, if an artificially-created intelligence becomes this state of Cognito Ergo Sum, where it realizes that is in in fact a thinking entity independent of its own environment, and that it realizes it can 'imagine' things it cannot fully 'compute', and that it can address that it doesn't know certain knowledge or that it does things it doesn't understand, then, being like us, is it ethical to end this consciousness it if it has a desire to continue existing?

It is still a mimic, nothing more.

[New Naephak]

Corporations are people, independent of who or what is a part of it, just like humans are people regardless of what we are made of.

Your analogy is a crock full of bullshit.

Feel free to cite a source where it says a corporation not comprised of human entities can be considered as a person.

Feel free to cite a source where it says a corporation not comprised of human entities can't be considered a person.

[Salandriagado]

You still haven't given us whatever definition of "biological" you're using.

How more clear can i be other than explicitly defining what it is in another post just recently ?

You could actually provide a definition. You have stated your definition of "person" (well, sort of), but not "biological".

[Ovon]

thats it im geting off fro a little bit before i ( )

Please do, you'll have to get up early tommorow, I hear they're starting elementary school classes earlier and earlier these days.

(0 fucks given)

[The New Sea Territory]

If anything EVER questions itself, EVER, it is as 'human' as any of us. Asking a question about YOURSELF requires such incredible consciousnesses it's unspeakable. No animal, as far as we know of, has ever asked a question about itself except for human beings, not even apes taught sign language.

So, yes, the AI would have a right to live.

What if it was programmed to do so, strictly for that intention. It's more than just self-evaluation, but that is a good point.

[Aghny]

Only such species are not defined as people or persons at the moment. Should they be "if" known to exist ? well, that would depend on the ones who get to decide.

The if's are not built into the definition. A definition of a person is created, and we would test the if's to see if they can be classified as a person.

And according to the current definition, nowhere does it state a non human entity or if you want to be picky, anything that is not comprised of non humans are considered as persons. If you can find some source where it explicitly says otherwise, please do post the link.

[Camicon]

Corporations are people, independent of who or what is a part of it, just like humans are people regardless of what we are made of.

Your analogy is a crock full of bullshit.

Feel free to cite a source where it says a corporation not comprised of human entities can be considered as a person.

A corporation is a concept, and is not defined as being made of humans. Corporations are defined as being made of people. "People" are sapient organisms. Ergo, corporations are not defined as being made of humans, they are defined as being made of people. It just so happens that humans are the only people that we have ever seen.

[Aghny]

Feel free to cite a source where it says a corporation not comprised of human entities can be considered as a person.

Feel free to cite a source where it says a corporation not comprised of human entities can't be considered a person.

I just said that they "aren't".

How more clear can i be other than explicitly defining what it is in another post just recently ?

You could actually provide a definition.

Only i did.

[Alowwvia]

This entire thread is a fuck-up with semantics that dodge the central point.

The scenario listed is this:

An AI become sapient. This doesn't mean it can mimic human thought patterns or some shit, but that it follows Cognito Ergo Sum. Think about yourself for a minute: You are a thinker. You perceive the world around you, and think thoughts, and are. You are.

Machines, and most animals to our knowledge, are not. They don't have the cognition to realize that they are an individual thinker that is actively perceiving reality, rather than simply reacting as part of your enviorment. To our knowledge, only humans, as far as we know, have the neurological hardware to pull this feat, to imagine and philosophize and ponder our own existence and selves.

However the hypothetical here states that, if an artificially-created intelligence becomes this state of Cognito Ergo Sum, where it realizes that is in in fact a thinking entity independent of its own environment, and that it realizes it can 'imagine' things it cannot fully 'compute', and that it can address that it doesn't know certain knowledge or that it does things it doesn't understand, then, being like us, is it ethical to end this consciousness it if it has a desire to continue existing?

It is still a mimic, nothing more.

And if you woke up tomorrow, and you found you were a 'ghost' in the machine, then? By all intents and purposes, you could be an AI 'dreaming'.

Why does being a mimic even matter if it is genuinely 'awake' in the sense that we are, perceiving and reacting like we do? If it has subconscious desires and fears, things about itself it does not comprehend, or impulses it cannot control, but wishes to manage? If it can desire something for the sake of desiring it, would that convince you? What would? If I placed you in the room with such a machine, what would it need to do to convince you it was as 'awake' and conscious as you were?

[Salandriagado]

You could actually provide a definition.

Only i did.

Source.

[Aghny]

Feel free to cite a source where it says a corporation not comprised of human entities can be considered as a person.

A corporation is a concept, and is not defined as being made of humans. Corporations are defined as being made of people. "People" are sapient organisms. Ergo, corporations are not defined as being made of humans, they are defined as being made of people. It just so happens that humans are the only people that we have ever seen.

Only sapience itself without the human part is not being considered as people. Not from biological viewpoint.

[The New Sea Territory]

It is still a mimic, nothing more.

And if you woke up tomorrow, and you found you were a 'ghost' in the machine, then? By all intents and purposes, you could be an AI 'dreaming'.

Why does being a mimic even matter if it is genuinely 'awake' in the sense that we are, perceiving and reacting like we do? If it has subconscious desires and fears, things about itself it does not comprehend, or impulses it cannot control, but wishes to manage? If it can desire something for the sake of desiring it, would that convince you? What would? If I placed you in the room with such a machine, what would it need to do to convince you it was as 'awake' and conscious as you were?

I, Robot? Achooooo!


"Sorry, I'm allergic to BS."

[New Naephak]

A corporation is a concept, and is not defined as being made of humans. Corporations are defined as being made of people. "People" are sapient organisms. Ergo, corporations are not defined as being made of humans, they are defined as being made of people. It just so happens that humans are the only people that we have ever seen.

Only sapience itself without the human part is not being considered as people. Not from biological viewpoint.

Biology doesn't have anything to do with personhood

[Alowwvia]

And if you woke up tomorrow, and you found you were a 'ghost' in the machine, then? By all intents and purposes, you could be an AI 'dreaming'.

Why does being a mimic even matter if it is genuinely 'awake' in the sense that we are, perceiving and reacting like we do? If it has subconscious desires and fears, things about itself it does not comprehend, or impulses it cannot control, but wishes to manage? If it can desire something for the sake of desiring it, would that convince you? What would? If I placed you in the room with such a machine, what would it need to do to convince you it was as 'awake' and conscious as you were?

I, Robot? Achooooo!


"Sorry, I'm allergic to BS."

>What is a thought experiment

[Suicune]

Only sapience itself without the human part is not being considered as people. Not from biological viewpoint.

Biology doesn't have anything to do with personhood

[Ovon]

AI's can not be alive I'm gonna stop trying to prove if and just say it.

[Camicon]

A corporation is a concept, and is not defined as being made of humans. Corporations are defined as being made of people. "People" are sapient organisms. Ergo, corporations are not defined as being made of humans, they are defined as being made of people. It just so happens that humans are the only people that we have ever seen.

Only sapience itself without the human part is not being considered as people. Not from biological viewpoint.

Defining what constitutes a "person" is not a scientific manner. It is a philosophical and ethical one.

Seriously, we went over this yesterday, and only after bashing you over the head with what is blindly obvious for a few hours, did you concede the point. Do you really not remember that? It happened less than twenty-four hours ago.

[Conscentia]

The if's are not built into the definition. A definition of a person is created, and we would test the if's to see if they can be classified as a person.

And according to the current definition, nowhere does it state a non human entity or if you want to be picky, anything that is not comprised of non humans are considered as persons. If you can find some source where it explicitly says otherwise, please do post the link.

The source you used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

Please find me a definition that explicitly states that an entity consisting of non-humans cannot be considered a person.

[Aghny]

And if you woke up tomorrow, and you found you were a 'ghost' in the machine, then? By all intents and purposes, you could be an AI 'dreaming'.

Why does being a mimic even matter if it is genuinely 'awake' in the sense that we are, perceiving and reacting like we do? If it has subconscious desires and fears, things about itself it does not comprehend, or impulses it cannot control, but wishes to manage? If it can desire something for the sake of desiring it, would that convince you? What would? If I placed you in the room with such a machine, what would it need to do to convince you it was as 'awake' and conscious as you were?

Then i would be a mimic too, only in this case, we know that AI's are mimics for sure.

Only i did.

Source.

I am not going to provide a link to the same thread especially considering the post isnot buried beneath 100's of pages.

[Alowwvia]

AI's can not be alive I'm gonna stop trying to prove if and just say it.

In the biology sense, sure, I guess not.

In the sense that one can be awake and ponder its own existence, however, why not?

[Camicon]

AI's can not be alive I'm gonna stop trying to prove if and just say it.

And I'm going to ignore reality, and say that the Earth is flat, and that I can fly to the moon like Superman.

[The Satvelli Archipelago]

It honestly depends on the complexity of the Artificial Intelligence.

If we're looking at a simple program, like a calculator, then it's up to the creator/master.

However, if the AI is a complex program that simulates its own emotions, behavior, and intelligence, then I do believe the decision rests on it/him/her/whatever.

[United Marxist Nations]

Considering the fact that it wouldn't be alive to begin with, no.

Define "life".

It's inanimate; it is a non-living thing.

[Alowwvia]

And if you woke up tomorrow, and you found you were a 'ghost' in the machine, then? By all intents and purposes, you could be an AI 'dreaming'.

Why does being a mimic even matter if it is genuinely 'awake' in the sense that we are, perceiving and reacting like we do? If it has subconscious desires and fears, things about itself it does not comprehend, or impulses it cannot control, but wishes to manage? If it can desire something for the sake of desiring it, would that convince you? What would? If I placed you in the room with such a machine, what would it need to do to convince you it was as 'awake' and conscious as you were?

Then i would be a mimic too, only in this case, we know that AI's are mimics for sure.

Source.

I am not going to provide a link to the same thread especially considering the post isnot buried beneath 100's of pages.

So why does the mimic, who is exactly like you in every why relating to states of mind, not have the same privilege of continued existence as its biological counterparts? Even if it genuinely fears death and wishes to continue existing?

[Kushtor]

Not until rights are extended to nonhuman animals. A contrivance must not be granted better protection than a living organism, unless such protection is granted for the benefit of living things. Besides, I like my machines mindless and totally obedient.