Would an AI have a right to live?

[Alowwvia]

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.

If it can only function by its programming, it's not a proper AI. YOU try again.

[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.

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.

No, they are programmed to think by human inventors. Their CREATOR is the creator, and has full legal rights over his property he created.

[Aghny]

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.

This. And just because you program it to behave like sentient, sapient beings, doesn't alter the fact that they are just mimics of living things.

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

I thought you meant "being biological".

As for what biological is, go look it up in google. I am not going to go cite sources for common knowledge like that.

[Salandriagado]

In that case, AIs are definitely alive.

Since when can AIs grow, metabolize, or reproduce?

Grow: give it the capacity to add additional processing capacity to itself.
Metabolise: this is just the mechanism by which you acquire energy, essentially. Very simple to achieve.
Reproduce: let it build AIs for itself.

[Kushtor]

This is a lie, contrived by a tribe of bloodthirsty savages. Other animals have the ability to think and learn, they experience and display emotions, and they certainly are conscious.

[Rossiya]

I probably would.

So . . . just because something doesn't fit the current definition of "life" means it should be destroyed because it could be a threat?

Well, do you REALLY want the world to be taken over by martians? Just read War of the Worlds, and you will be bashing in alien heads if they ever land here. However, I do not have a problem with letting animals live, its just aliens should be killed immediately.

[United Marxist Nations]

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.

None of those would be biological; by your logic, an internal combustion engine is metabolizing.

[Aghny]

If it can only function by its programming, it's not a proper AI. YOU try again.

Without any inherent programming, ofcourse it can't function.

[The Satvelli Archipelago]

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.

For the sake of curiosity, what if an AI in a mechanical body was composed of microscopic nonorganic "cells". Would it be considered biological?

[Alowwvia]

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.

No, they are programmed to think by human inventors. Their CREATOR is the creator, and has full legal rights over his property he created.

You're arguing semantics.

Moreover, you're wrong. What you are thinking of is not an AI but a Logic Engine, which simply processes inputs and makes outputs based on programming.

An AI, by definition, is a mind that thinks like yours does, recognizing it as a self, and does not automatically make outputs according to inputs via formula.

[Alowwvia]

If it can only function by its programming, it's not a proper AI. YOU try again.

Without any inherent programming, ofcourse it can't function.

The same can be true of the human brain if you want to get technical; our DNA deterimines our own programming.

[Anachronous Rex]

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.

This. And just because you program it to behave like sentient, sapient beings, doesn't alter the fact that they are just mimics of living things.

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

I thought you meant "being biological".

As for what biological is, go look it up in google. I am not going to go cite sources for common knowledge like that.

You'll have to forgive us for treating you like an idiot. It seems to be the only way to get through to you.

[Conjoined Empire]

I understand your arguments, yet let us look at it this way... we were not created or designed by people...

Now let us look at it on a scientific basis:
Something is living if:
1) It can react to stimuli (Required) [Yes]
2) It can reproduce (Require) [No]
3) It respirates (Required) [No]
4) It has metabolic processes (Required) [No]
5) It can move (Not required.) [No]

"Biological" life. And by the time we have the software to make an AI we'll probably have to hardware to do all of these, anyways.

Point taken... This is certainly a very controversial matter, I myself have nothing against an AI having the right to live... my only qualm is when can it be defined as alive in the first place...

[Camicon]

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.

Then perhaps, you should not be here? The question of whether or not an AI is entitled human rights is a philosophical/ethical/legal issue. Not a scientific one.

Too late. I already argued so much already. Then again, i can always goback to whether it should be created or not.

This is tacit admission that you are fully aware that "personhood" is an ethical and philosophical issue, and not a scientific one. There is no biological definition of a person, and there never will be.

[Britannia I]

No...they are not human, therefore it is not right for them to be granted equal rights as humans.

However, saying that if technology advanced to that level and AI's had the intelligence for free will then...well I don't really know. One thing however will always be true and that is that AI and humans will not have the same right in regard to life. Think of it this way...in some circumstances humans get the death penalty. I imagine it will be more frequently used on AI however because of the simple fact that THEY ARE NOT HUMAN.

[Aghny]

No, they are programmed to think by human inventors. Their CREATOR is the creator, and has full legal rights over his property he created.

You're arguing semantics.

Moreover, you're wrong. What you are thinking of is not an AI but a Logic Engine, which simply processes inputs and makes outputs based on programming.

An AI, by definition, is a mind that thinks like yours does, recognizing it as a self, and does not automatically make outputs according to inputs via formula.

Yet, even our human brain is like that

Reaction to an action.

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.

None of those would be biological; by your logic, an internal combustion engine is metabolizing.

Not to mention an AI is a software, not a physical entity like a robot in and of itself.

[Salandriagado]

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.

This. And just because you program it to behave like sentient, sapient beings, doesn't alter the fact that they are just mimics of living things.

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

I thought you meant "being biological".

As for what biological is, go look it up in google. I am not going to go cite sources for common knowledge like that.

I can think several different definitions of "biological" that are used academically. Which one do you prefer?

[The New Sea Territory]

This is a lie, contrived by a tribe of bloodthirsty savages. Other animals have the ability to think and learn, they experience and display emotions, and they certainly are conscious.

So, what meat will we eat? I like a nice, juicy rare steak....

Rights only apply to civilized and sentient LIVING beings, so this applies to neither animals or AI. The owner can choose how to treat them, so you can treat them as people if you wish but can never force someone else to.

[246corndog]

If a human being were to create something, robotic or not, that was capable of processing emotions, thoughts, and everything of the sort that could come along with a sentient being then yes, I would say that they would have basic rights to life..however, I agree with whomever previously stated they would probably get destroyed by a mob

[Seperates]

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?

I disagree. Cognito Ergo Sum not only presupposes an I, but also the act of thinking and that we can recognize what thinking is. Merely because an animal does not communicate the same way as you, or relate to it's enviorment the same way as you, does not mean that it is not 'thinking'. Who is to say that computer's aren't already thinking?

[Camicon]

No...they are not human, therefore it is not right for them to be granted equal rights as humans.

However, saying that if technology advanced to that level and AI's had the intelligence for free will then...well I don't really know. One thing however will always be true and that is that AI and humans will not have the same right in regard to life. Think of it this way...in some circumstances humans get the death penalty. I imagine it will be more frequently used on AI however because of the simple fact that THEY ARE NOT HUMAN.

No, an AI is not a human, and nobody is going to claim they are.

However, they are people, and deserve every "human" right that we enjoy.

[Kengburg]

If the program is sentient and had the capacity for emotion, then I would have to say it is entitled to the right to live unless it threatened the safety and security of the General Public. Plus, who the hell would create a sentient AI after watching The Matrix?

[The Satvelli Archipelago]

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.

None of those would be biological; by your logic, an internal combustion engine is metabolizing.

Indeed. When you think about it, man has throughout the course of history modeled what it created a tad bit like itself. An engine pumps oil and various other chemicals throughout an automobile much like a heart pumps blood throughout the body, for example. If we were to create AI with emotions, would we not model them after ourselves for the sake of preventing alienation from such beings and showing compassion for our creations?

[United Marxist Nations]

Since when can AIs grow, metabolize, or reproduce?

Grow: give it the capacity to add additional processing capacity to itself.
Metabolise: this is just the mechanism by which you acquire energy, essentially. Very simple to achieve.
Reproduce: let it build AIs for itself.

Grow

1. To increase in size by a natural and organic process; to increase in bulk by the gradual assimilation of new matter into the living organism; said of animals and vegetables and their organs.

2. To increase in any way; to become larger and stronger; to be augmented; to advance; to extend; to wax; to accrue. Winter began to grow fast on. (Knolles) Even just the sum that i do owe to you Is growing to me by Antipholus. (Shak)

3. To spring up and come to matturity in a natural way; to be produced by vegetation; to thrive; to flourish; as, rice grows in warm countries. Where law faileth, error groweth. (Gower)

4. To pass from one state to another; to result as an effect from a cause; to become; as, to grow pale. For his mind Had grown Suspicion's sanctuary. (Byron)

5. To become attached of fixed; to adhere. Our knees shall kneel till to the ground they grow. (Shak) growing cell, or growing slide, a device for preserving alive a minute object in water continually renewed, in a manner to permit its growth to be watched under the microscope. Grown over, covered with a growth. To grow out of, to issue from, as plants from the soil, or as a branch from the main stem; to result from. These wars have grown out of commercial considerations. (a. Hamilton) to grow up, to arrive at full stature or maturity; as, grown up children. To grow together, to close and adhere; to become united by growth, as flesh or the bark of a tree severed.

Metabolism
Definition

noun

The process involving a set of chemical reactions that modifies a molecule into another for storage, or for immediate use in another reaction or as a by product.



Reproduction
reproduction

The production of offspring by organised bodies.

None of your examples match the definition.

[Alowwvia]

You're arguing semantics.

Moreover, you're wrong. What you are thinking of is not an AI but a Logic Engine, which simply processes inputs and makes outputs based on programming.

An AI, by definition, is a mind that thinks like yours does, recognizing it as a self, and does not automatically make outputs according to inputs via formula.

Yet, even our human brain is like that

Reaction to an action.

None of those would be biological; by your logic, an internal combustion engine is metabolizing.

Not to mention an AI is a software, not a physical entity like a robot in and of itself.

Sure, if you want to get reeeaaalllll technical about it, every effect needs cause, yes.

So, if YOUR brain operates like that, and the various circuitry of an AI operates like that, then what's the difference?