Would an AI have a right to live?

[Conscentia]

Define "life".

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

You define life as non-living things?

[Camicon]

Define "life".

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

You didn't define life. You simply said it's non-living. If it's non-living, then it must not meet the definition of life.

So I'll ask again: define "life".

[Salandriagado]

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.

I've read back about 20 pages before I gave up. I saw several attempts to define person but not a single definition of biological.

[New Naephak]

Define "life".

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

"lacking consciousness or power of motion"
So, trees are not alive?

[The Satvelli Archipelago]

Not until rights are extended to nonhuman animals.

By nonhuman, are we talking about semi-human creatures who have experienced light/heavy mutations, or nonsentient creatures such as dogs and cats?

[United Marxist Nations]

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

You didn't define life. You simply said it's non-living. If it's non-living, then it must not meet the definition of life.

So I'll ask again: define "life".

A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

Happy?

[The New Lowlands]

Legally speaking, and AI would not have a right to life.
Morally speaking, assuming it has the Three Laws installed, I would say that it loosely does.
Speaking from experience, I would imagine that the poor thing would be put down by a horde of Luddites/Reactionaries.

[Aghny]

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.

I said, that my argument was from a biological viewpoint. And the definition of what a person is biologically is not the same as the philosophical or ethical one. That was the conclusion we reached. If i misled you to believe otherwise, now you know.

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.

I never said, it "cannot be", but that "it isn't". That is a difference. Alot of definitions and theories and all that change with time. I am going by the current one. If someone for some reason in the future, consider animals to be persons too, well they are, only not by the current definition.

[Salandriagado]

You didn't define life. You simply said it's non-living. If it's non-living, then it must not meet the definition of life.

So I'll ask again: define "life".

A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

Happy?

In that case, AIs are definitely alive.

[Alowwvia]

Legally speaking, and AI would not have a right to life.
Morally speaking, assuming it has the Three Laws installed, I would say that it loosely does.
Speaking from experience, I would imagine that the poor thing would be put down by a horde of Luddites/Reactionaries.

Sadly, humans don't have the Three Laws in them, so I don't feel a need to force sapient AI into human slavery.

[The New Sea Territory]

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.

So you are saying a machine is a living being, and/or has the same rights? And you then say we ignore reality? Reality is that my Macbook is a Machine, that all microwaves are machines, and that computer programs are machines. They ARE property. They are not living. I could understand the "Animal Rights", because at least they are living animals, but this is crazy.

[United Marxist Nations]

A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

Happy?

In that case, AIs are definitely alive.

Since when can AIs grow, metabolize, or reproduce?

[The Satvelli Archipelago]

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



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

I've read back about 20 pages before I gave up. I saw several attempts to define person but not a single definition of biological.

I myself define "biological" as an organism made of organic substances, or made up of organisms made of organic substances.

[Aghny]

I've read back about 20 pages before I gave up. I saw several attempts to define person but not a single definition of biological.

.

Anyway, "humans"

[Salandriagado]

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

So you are saying a machine is a living being, and/or has the same rights? And you then say we ignore reality? Reality is that my Macbook is a Machine, that all microwaves are machines, and that computer programs are machines. They ARE property. They are not living. I could understand the "Animal Rights", because at least they are living animals, but this is crazy.

None of those things is an AI. None of them is sentient. None of them have emotions. Try again.

[Conscentia]

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.

I never said, it "cannot be", but that "it isn't". That is a difference. Alot of definitions and theories and all that change with time. I am going by the current one. If someone for some reason in the future, consider animals to be persons too, well they are, only not by the current definition.

What "current definition"?

[Alowwvia]

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

So you are saying a machine is a living being, and/or has the same rights? And you then say we ignore reality? Reality is that my Macbook is a Machine, that all microwaves are machines, and that computer programs are machines. They ARE property. They are not living. I could understand the "Animal Rights", because at least they are living animals, but this is crazy.

And none of them have thoughts, emotions, or a working mind like you do.

The hypothetical here, that many people do not get, is that these, like you, are thinkers. They think, therefore, they are.

[United Marxist Nations]

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

You define life as non-living things?

Not what I meant.

[Salandriagado]

I've read back about 20 pages before I gave up. I saw several attempts to define person but not a single definition of biological.

.

Anyway, "humans"

Biological. "Humans" is not a definition of biological. How fucking difficult is it?

[Anachronous Rex]

I've read back about 20 pages before I gave up. I saw several attempts to define person but not a single definition of biological.

.

Anyway, "humans"

Right, so no other living things are biological?

[Conscentia]

I've read back about 20 pages before I gave up. I saw several attempts to define person but not a single definition of biological.

I myself define "biological" as an organism made of organic substances, or made up of organisms made of organic substances.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j2a0q14wOs

[The New Sea Territory]

So you are saying a machine is a living being, and/or has the same rights? And you then say we ignore reality? Reality is that my Macbook is a Machine, that all microwaves are machines, and that computer programs are machines. They ARE property. They are not living. I could understand the "Animal Rights", because at least they are living animals, but this is crazy.

None of those things is an AI. None of them is sentient. None of them have emotions. Try again.

AI do not have emotions, they have programmed reactions. That is a piece of machinery, therefore property. PRIVATE property, at that.

It has the same properties of my Macbook, as the macbook also has programmed reactions. The AI is just programmed to ACT AS a human.

You try again.

[The Satvelli Archipelago]

In that case, AIs are definitely alive.

Since when can AIs grow, metabolize, or reproduce?

Perhaps an AI in a mechanical body could simulate the need for nutrients in order for survival, changes to its body as a result from the age of said AI, and in extreme cases, simulate the repoduction between one or more AI in order to create a new one. But this is just me.

[Esternial]

I've read back about 20 pages before I gave up. I saw several attempts to define person but not a single definition of biological.

I myself define "biological" as an organism made of organic substances, or made up of organisms made of organic substances.

I definite it as being built up from (or resembling) cellular structures, the building block of all organic life.

[Camicon]

You didn't define life. You simply said it's non-living. If it's non-living, then it must not meet the definition of life.

So I'll ask again: define "life".

A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

Grow - naturally increasing in size, and changing. AI's can do this.

Metabolism - a chemical process within a living organism that sustains life. Ignoring the obvious circular logic ("If it's alive, is can metabolize. If it can metabolize, it's alive"), AI's can do this. The flow of electricity, and generation of energy, is a chemical process that keep AI's alive.

Reproduce - We already have self-replicating computer programs. Non-sentient ones, let alone sapient ones.

And responding, and adapting to stimuli? Seriously? We have non-sapient AI that can do that.