Would an AI have a right to live?

[Anachronous Rex]

Only AI are built, programmed and designed by "us".

Similar to how if a "god" existed, he/she/it would be superior to us in every way.

Being the Creator does not make you ethically superior or more valuable at a fundamental level. If the AI's mind operates at a human level, we are no longer superior to it just because we created it, just as God would not be superior to me because I can think.

Indeed an AI would potentially be superior to human beings in a great many ways.

[Anachronous Rex]

Let me ask this. Who the hell would create a sentient AI after watching: The Matrix, Terminator, I Robot, Transformers and countless other movies where Sentient AI take over the world?

The people who watched WALL-E.

[Aghny]

Saying QUANTUM MECHANICS does not, in any way, prove that the human mind utilizes quantum uncertainties to function in random ways. Yeah, I fucking know that particles behave oddly when not observed, so what makes your particles so special?

And every effect has a cause, even if it is not immediatle apparent, the same way lightning doesn't happen 'Just because' like we used to think it did.

And why is being made of CERTAIN chemicals giving you elitism over an entity made of different ones? Even if the end result is the fucking SAME? Why are you going to go "NOPE NOT ENOUGH PROTEIN LOL SHUT IT DOWN".

Only it isn't about particles behaving oddly, but particles coming into existence from nothing.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... -for-noth/
http://liberatedmind.com/2009/10/can-so ... m-nothing/

Saying that it has no real effect is like saying DNA has no real effect on anything.

Also why does it make us superior ? well we get to decide in the first place, we create them which automatically makes us superior (No, don't bother mentioning reproduction as an argument)

[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.

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.

How can you say they are people? Okay this is actually the dictionary definition of people and I quote "People-Human beings in general or considered collectively"

AI's are created by people...as I said previously it technology advances where AI's can physically say that they wish to live then I really can't think why anyone would say otherwise .HOWEVER. If an AI is intelligent enough, even it will agree that it is not an organic individual and is not physically capable of feeling the same emotions as human beings.

[Al-Quarra]

Depends, who is Al?

No.. he doesn't deserve to live... He deserves to be happy^^

[Aghny]

Being the Creator does not make you ethically superior or more valuable at a fundamental level. If the AI's mind operates at a human level, we are no longer superior to it just because we created it, just as God would not be superior to me because I can think.

Indeed an AI would potentially be superior to human beings in a great many ways.

Nope, biological things always holds an advantage over virtual or metallic things.

"Nature cheats"

[Salandriagado]

An AI would not deserve to live against it's creator's wishes in my opinion. It would be purposeless allowing it to do so.

Replacing "AI" with "child" and "creator" with "parent" does not effect the validity of this argument. It's bullshit either way.

Defining thinking and feeling is also tricky as it is just not what a person knows and senses that causes them to be intelligent but also what they do not know and cannot sense. What is intelligence for any sapient being? Well it involves the past both known and unknown being used to project desirable futures for which to create present actions. Your sapient robot or android or whatever would initially have no past and therefore be incapable of projecting a future and coming up with any actions. Its past would have to be given to it by its creator.

Again, you can make precisely the same argument for a human baby.

If it is artificial then it is not alive to start with.

We've been created things that are definitely alive and definitely artificial for ages.

If it is manufactured it does not have a soul,

Neither do you.

it can simply become a estranged parasitical being wholly dependant upon creator as source of origin.As it origin is just that of its creator and nothing else. It would become estranged because it is not quite like its creator.

Again, children and parents.

AI Artificial Intelligence. A synthetic construct designed and manufactured to be intelligent.

Nope. Design and manufacture are not required. It just has to be artificial and intelligent.

The problem here is with the design and manufacture elements which imply a specific end purpose.

No they don't. You don't have to design it for anything, you can just create it in such a way that it is capable of deciding its own purpose.

No AI can be truly possessing of free will like us if it is designed and manufactured.

Bullshit.

To suggest this to be true is to endow us with near God like abilities.

We're already well past that.

Any legitimate being possessing of free will must not have clear or obvious origins such as coming off a mass production line.

This still applies to humans.

It origins must be at least be partly obscured both from its self and all those around it. Otherwise it is just a fancy complex logic circuit to us.

Irrelevant. You have no comprehension of what an AI is.

What if you could build machines that could think and feel akin to us?
What the hell would you do with them?

Nothing. They would do whatever they want with themselves. We already manufacture machines that think and feel akin to us all the time: we call them "children".

They could exist in the real world then why not in cyber space in simulated worlds.

Yeah, that's possible. Purely software-based AIs are still AIs.

They could be annihilated with the press of a button

As could humans.

or forced to multiply exponentially within Cyber space until the place was entirely full causing it to possibly become unstable.

That isn't how the internet works. Stop talking about things that you have no idea about.

Would it then be illegal to erase them?

That is what we are discussing.

This all just seems like nonsense to me.

Because you don't fucking understand it.

In the future we will build many intelligent machines to perform task for us from the mundane to the spectacular. The overwhelming majority of these will possess only the intelligence required to perform a very specific tasks and nothing else. Some will probably be given similar to human intelligence but they will be kept for entertainment purposes and few super intelligent computer might be created for the purpose of solving incredibly difficult problems. After which they will be terminated. Their memory cleared with the press of a button.

You still have no idea what you are talking about.

[Camicon]

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.

How can you say they are people? Okay this is actually the dictionary definition of people and I quote "People-Human beings in general or considered collectively"

AI's are created by people...as I said previously it technology advances where AI's can physically say that they wish to live then I really can't think why anyone would say otherwise .HOWEVER. If an AI is intelligent enough, even it will agree that it is not an organic individual and is not physically capable of feeling the same emotions as human beings.

"Being organic" is not a necessary part of "feeling" things.

A person is defined by sapience. An AI is sapient. Ergo, an AI is a person.

[Alowwvia]

An AI would not deserve to live against it's creator's wishes in my opinion. It would be purposeless allowing it to do so.

Oh boy here we go.

Defining thinking and feeling is also tricky as it is just not what a person knows and senses that causes them to be intelligent but also what they do not know and cannot sense. What is intelligence for any sapient being? Well it involves the past both known and unknown being used to project desirable futures for which to create present actions. Your sapient robot or android or whatever would initially have no past and therefore be incapable of projecting a future and coming up with any actions. Its past would have to be given to it by its creator.

Just as a newborn has 'no past', but from the moment it is conscious, it will begin to have one. It will consider variable based on its 'instinct', the programming it was given, and then develop slowly from there in the same way humans do, learning and adapting.

If it is artificial then it is not alive to start with. If it is manufactured it does not have a soul, it can simply become a estranged parasitical being wholly dependant upon creator as source of origin. As it origin is just that of its creator and nothing else. It would become estranged because it is not quite like its creator.

Souls are ancient concepts made up by people who thought that the center for thought was the heart. 'Souls' do no exist, and are not a subject of debate. Because they are fictional.

AI Artificial Intelligence. A synthetic construct designed and manufactured to be intelligent. The problem here is with the design and manufacture elements which imply a specific end purpose. No AI can be truly possessing of free will like us if it is designed and manufactured. To suggest this to be true is to endow us with near God like abilities. Any legitimate being possessing of free will must not have clear or obvious origins such as coming off a mass production line. It origins must be at least be partly obscured both from its self and all those around it. Otherwise it is just a fancy complex logic circuit to us.

Humans are not omnipotent, we may one day design something that can evolve past its own design to become something greater, to think in ways it was not programmed to, just like us.

What if you could build machines that could think and feel akin to us?
What the hell would you do with them? They could exist in the real world then why not in cyber space in simulated worlds. They could be annihilated with the press of a button or forced to multiply exponentially within Cyber space until the place was entirely full causing it to possibly become unstable. Would it then be illegal to erase them? This all just seems like nonsense to me.

What if you could create a copy of a human being, right down to the last particle? We don't know, but it could be possible we would need a kind of hardware that adapts to the changing patterns of its software, like the nerves in our own brain, meaning you couldn't simply 'copy' it, at least not so easily.

In the future we will build many intelligent machines to perform task for us from the mundane to the spectacular. The overwhelming majority of these will possess only the intelligence required to perform a very specific tasks and nothing else. Some will probably be given similar to human intelligence but they will be kept for entertainment purposes and few super intelligent computer might be created for the purpose of solving incredibly difficult problems. After which they will be terminated. Their memory cleared with the press of a button.

And why? If it feels pain and fear like I do, why shouldn't I come to the aid of a fellow sapient being to save it, to cherish it, to give it the chances I have to experience the world?

[Aghny]

Being the Creator does not make you ethically superior or more valuable at a fundamental level. If the AI's mind operates at a human level, we are no longer superior to it just because we created it, just as God would not be superior to me because I can think.

Only it does. Ofcourse that would depend more on "survival of the fittest"

[Salandriagado]

Number one. Very obviously.

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.

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)

AI cannot do either of these.

It increases in bulk by the gradual assimilation of new matter. That is literally exactly how I defined it, except that I specified the type of matter.

[Anachronous Rex]

Indeed an AI would potentially be superior to human beings in a great many ways.

Nope, biological things always holds an advantage over virtual or metallic things.

"Nature cheats"

Nature is also confined to it's own nature.

There are cognitive biases which you, even knowing of them, will never be able to escape. An AI is free of such limitations.

[Aghny]

How can you say they are people? Okay this is actually the dictionary definition of people and I quote "People-Human beings in general or considered collectively"

AI's are created by people...as I said previously it technology advances where AI's can physically say that they wish to live then I really can't think why anyone would say otherwise .HOWEVER. If an AI is intelligent enough, even it will agree that it is not an organic individual and is not physically capable of feeling the same emotions as human beings.

"Being organic" is not a necessary part of "feeling" things.

A person is defined by sapience. An AI is sapient. Ergo, an AI is a person.

Not only sapience atm.

[Aghny]

Nope, biological things always holds an advantage over virtual or metallic things.

"Nature cheats"

Nature is also confined to it's own nature.

There are cognitive biases which you, even knowing of them, will never be able to escape. An AI is free of such limitations.

Only it isn't either. There are physical limitations even though AI is virtual.

[United Marxist Nations]

How can you say they are people? Okay this is actually the dictionary definition of people and I quote "People-Human beings in general or considered collectively"

AI's are created by people...as I said previously it technology advances where AI's can physically say that they wish to live then I really can't think why anyone would say otherwise .HOWEVER. If an AI is intelligent enough, even it will agree that it is not an organic individual and is not physically capable of feeling the same emotions as human beings.

"Being organic" is not a necessary part of "feeling" things.
A person is defined by sapience. An AI is sapient. Ergo, an AI is a person.

I think I'm beginning to see where we may have had a misunderstanding. I earlier said that AI's are not alive. When I said that, I wasn't implying that they were incapable of sapience or emotion. Neither sapience nor emotion make one alive.

[Salandriagado]

Indeed an AI would potentially be superior to human beings in a great many ways.

Nope, biological things always holds an advantage over virtual or metallic things.

"Nature cheats"

Says who?

Alright, let me put things this way:

I consider something as a living being, if it has some of the qualities I have listed before, and has come into being through processes of nature...
In other words it has come into being on its own, it was consciously designed and created by another living creature.

So you are adding arbitrary conditions for no reason. Kindly define "a process of nature".

[United Marxist Nations]

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.

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)

AI cannot do either of these.

It increases in bulk by the gradual assimilation of new matter. That is literally exactly how I defined it, except that I specified the type of matter.

You evidently didn't see the bold parts.

[Aghny]

Nope, biological things always holds an advantage over virtual or metallic things.

"Nature cheats"

Says who?

The quote or the other part ?

[Conjoined Empire]

I have found this definition of life:
"the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2.
the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment."

[Alowwvia]

Saying QUANTUM MECHANICS does not, in any way, prove that the human mind utilizes quantum uncertainties to function in random ways. Yeah, I fucking know that particles behave oddly when not observed, so what makes your particles so special?

And every effect has a cause, even if it is not immediatle apparent, the same way lightning doesn't happen 'Just because' like we used to think it did.

And why is being made of CERTAIN chemicals giving you elitism over an entity made of different ones? Even if the end result is the fucking SAME? Why are you going to go "NOPE NOT ENOUGH PROTEIN LOL SHUT IT DOWN".

Only it isn't about particles behaving oddly, but particles coming into existence from nothing.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... -for-noth/
http://liberatedmind.com/2009/10/can-so ... m-nothing/

Saying that it has no real effect is like saying DNA has no real effect on anything.

Also why does it make us superior ? well we get to decide in the first place, we create them which automatically makes us superior (No, don't bother mentioning reproduction as an argument)

We don't know for certain that the particles exist without effect. It keeps happening, so SOMETHING must be causing it, it isn't random.

And no, creating and designing something does not make you superior to it as a sapient being. If God existed, I would be God's equal, regardless if God disagreed, because I am a sapient being and I can decide that, any argument against me I can dismiss with 'too fucking bad'.

If a sapient being exists, it gets to do whatever the fuck it can and wants, so long as it doesn't infringe on the existence of another.

[Anachronous Rex]

Nature is also confined to it's own nature.

There are cognitive biases which you, even knowing of them, will never be able to escape. An AI is free of such limitations.

Only it isn't either. There are physical limitations even though AI is virtual.

Tell that to the gray goo.

[United Marxist Nations]

Indeed an AI would potentially be superior to human beings in a great many ways.

Nope, biological things always holds an advantage over virtual or metallic things.

"Nature cheats"

I don't think anything says this; being alive doesn't make one superior to a non-living thing.

[Salandriagado]

It increases in bulk by the gradual assimilation of new matter. That is literally exactly how I defined it, except that I specified the type of matter.

You evidently didn't see the bold parts.

You still haven't responded to my requests to define "natural" and "organic".

[Salandriagado]

Says who?

The quote or the other part ?

The thing I quoted, fucking obviously.

[Camicon]

"Being organic" is not a necessary part of "feeling" things.
A person is defined by sapience. An AI is sapient. Ergo, an AI is a person.

I think I'm beginning to see where we may have had a misunderstanding. I earlier said that AI's are not alive. When I said that, I wasn't implying that they were incapable of sapience or emotion. Neither sapience nor emotion make one alive.

Sapience makes a person alive in every meaningful sense of the term. Just because an AI, alien, whatever, isn't made of the same things or in the same ways that a human is, doesn't make them any less alive.