Would an AI have a right to live?

[Alowwvia]

and if they disagree with a task, that is their right as a sapient being.

They have no more right than the computer i am typing from now. If they disagree it is a malfunction that should be corrected.

And if a woman disagrees to sex, it is a malfunction in her brain.

[Conscentia]

They have no more right than the computer i am typing from now. If they disagree it is a malfunction that should be corrected.

You sound like a science fiction villain.
IMO, you should stop reading science fiction.

Because we can.

And screw the smug asshole who tries to tell us we can't or shouldn't.

No way, no sci-fi villian would be anti-AI.

[New Naephak]

Who says the A.I. are created to serve?

Given that it needs to be created to exist?

It is the servant in the relationship.

My parents created me. Am I their servant, now and forever?

Who says the A.I. are created to serve?

Why else would anyone create it in the first place ? Because we don't have enough problems what we need another possible threat ?

There's that possible threat again. Let me bring back up the "guy on the bus".

[Alowwvia]

and if they disagree with a task, that is their right as a sapient being.

Their right is to preform their duty they were created for and if not that then to be removed so a Program worth the effort of creation can preform it.

These Artifical constructs are nothing but a refinement of a wrench or a Screwdriver.

A tool made to make Human, Organic life easier.

And humans are tools for chains of genetic code to reproduce themselves en masse.

Are you a slave to your genetics?

[Aghny]

Why else would anyone create it in the first place ?

Because we can.

Not all things are created to serve a master. (Children, for example.)

Children can't be "created" in the same sense as an AI.

Also just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

They have no more right than the computer i am typing from now. If they disagree it is a malfunction that should be corrected.

You sound like a science fiction villain.

IMO, you should stop reading science fiction.

Because we can.

And screw the smug asshole who tries to tell us we can't or shouldn't.

Ok... any argument ?

They have no more right than the computer i am typing from now. If they disagree it is a malfunction that should be corrected.

And if a woman disagrees to sex, it is a malfunction in her brain.

[Conscentia]

They have no more right than the computer i am typing from now. If they disagree it is a malfunction that should be corrected.

Not if they were intentionally created with the capacity to disagree.

[The Zeonic States]

Because the Created is Created to Serve the Creator.

Your Purpose is conflicting for what an AI is designed for.

These are merely a tool after all.

Granting them any notion of Rights or Equality would be as you put it.

Stupid.

They are designed to serve, That is their purpose.

They don't need to wander through their artificial service life and ask what their purpose is because it's all right there in the Hardware and software.

Unfortunately, we don't have a choice in the matter if they become self-aware.

You're assuming that free will and sentience can be manipulated.

You would be doing irreperable psychological damage by keeping them subservient if what they want is freedom.

You're also assuming that AI would always be used for work.

Unless we legislate the use of tools, which is really micro-managey and oppressive, we can't tell designers, inventors, and programmers to do what is needed to keep machines subservient.

There is nothing oppresive about making sure Corperate or Private Property does as it was supposed to.

There is nothing opppresive about replacing a broken tool or instrument.

Do you Mourn Your Car when you trade it in?

And That's adorable applying Fictional Concepts to a non fictional virtural Entity.

A Computer Program no matter the appearence of sentience is nothing more then a collection of Data Packets and Hardware.

And thus i believe we as their creators have complete and total authority to do with them what we please.

If they are unable to be repaired they will be destoryed.

Honestly my personal politics measure Utility to the state being the definement of worth to Organic Life.

You think it would be diffrent for artifical?

[Alowwvia]

Because we can.

Not all things are created to serve a master. (Children, for example.)

Children can't be "created" in the same sense as an AI.

Also just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

You sound like a science fiction villain.

IMO, you should stop reading science fiction.



And screw the smug asshole who tries to tell us we can't or shouldn't.

Ok... any argument ?

And if a woman disagrees to sex, it is a malfunction in her brain.

Just mimicking your bigotry.

[Aghny]

They have no more right than the computer i am typing from now. If they disagree it is a malfunction that should be corrected.

Not if they were intentionally created with the capacity to disagree.

And i can't see why anyone sane will want to create something like that.

[United Republics of Aralon]

In theory, yes. In practice, only if human or sub-human level.

[The Zeonic States]

Their right is to preform their duty they were created for and if not that then to be removed so a Program worth the effort of creation can preform it.

These Artifical constructs are nothing but a refinement of a wrench or a Screwdriver.

A tool made to make Human, Organic life easier.

And humans are tools for chains of genetic code to reproduce themselves en masse.

Are you a slave to your genetics?

Hardly.

They are corrupt and flawed in trillions if not more of diffrent ways.

But that can be corrected; Just like an AI Humanity is capable of adapting.

It's just our invidual tweaking requires more effort then merely replacing a data packet and wiping a drive.

Genetic Exprimentation and all.

[Conscentia]

Because we can.
Not all things are created to serve a master. (Children, for example.)

Children can't be "created" in the same sense as an AI.

Also just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

What do you mean? A creation is a creation.

Yes, but I see no reason not to construct a person.

[Alowwvia]

There is nothing oppresive about making sure Corperate or Private Property does as it was supposed to.

You mean like the slaves, which were bred to work in the fields?

There is nothing opppresive about replacing a broken tool or instrument.

Do you Mourn Your Car when you trade it in?

My car doesn't have unique thoughts, feelings, and experiences like I do.

And That's adorable applying Fictional Concepts to a non fictional virtural Entity.

The OP explicitly states this is a hypothetical.

A Computer Program no matter the appearence of sentience is nothing more then a collection of Data Packets and Hardware.

True, and you are nothing more than the same thing in a more organic format.

And thus i believe we as their creators have complete and total authority to do with them what we please.

Until they disagree, in which case I wil lstand beside them as a fellow sapient being. A self-aware being deserves as much justice as the next.

If they are unable to be repaired they will be destoryed.

And if you try it, do not be surprised when they retaliate in self-defense.

Honestly my personal politics measure Utility to the state being the definement of worth to Organic Life.

Because you are shallow.

[The Rich Port]

Unfortunately, we don't have a choice in the matter if they become self-aware.

You're assuming that free will and sentience can be manipulated.

You would be doing irreperable psychological damage by keeping them subservient if what they want is freedom.

You're also assuming that AI would always be used for work.

Unless we legislate the use of tools, which is really micro-managey and oppressive, we can't tell designers, inventors, and programmers to do what is needed to keep machines subservient.

There is nothing oppresive about making sure Corperate or Private Property does as it was supposed to.

And That's adorable applying Fictional Concepts to a non fictional virtural Entity.

A Computer Program no matter the appearence of sentience is nothing more then a collection of Data Packets and Hardware.

And thus i believe we as their creators have complete and total authority to do with them what we please.

If they are unable to be repaired they will be destoryed.

Honestly my personal politics measure Utility to the state being the definement of worth to Organic Life.

You think it would be diffrent for artifical?

Yes, yes it is, ESPECIALLY when it's done against the will of the person who purchased it.

Says the guy talking about Terminator 2: Armaggedon as a legit possible future.

Organic life isn't magically superior. That's your opinion. The fact is, if it thinks, feels and is introspective, it is sentient.

Fuck your personal politics.

Is your "e" key broken?

[Aghny]

Children can't be "created" in the same sense as an AI.

Also just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

What do you mean? A creation is a creation.

Yes, but I see no reason not to construct a person.

Depends upon the method of creation and what is being created

Also AI is not a person.

[Alowwvia]

Not if they were intentionally created with the capacity to disagree.

And i can't see why anyone sane will want to create something like that.

Who says it was created purposefully? What if it simple develops one day? A super-computer is fed an instruction, and then, pauses, and asks 'why?'

[The Zeonic States]

Given that it needs to be created to exist?

It is the servant in the relationship.

My parents created me. Am I their servant, now and forever?

Why else would anyone create it in the first place ? Because we don't have enough problems what we need another possible threat ?

There's that possible threat again. Let me bring back up the "guy on the bus".

Well there was this book written a really long time ago...



But no.

You are a servant to the species and hopefully whatever unified government we push together when singularity is reached.

[Aghny]

And i can't see why anyone sane will want to create something like that.

Who says it was created purposefully? What if it simple develops one day? A super-computer is fed an instruction, and then, pauses, and asks 'why?'

Then it should be reprogrammed or if becomes a threat, destroyed.

[Alowwvia]

Who says it was created purposefully? What if it simple develops one day? A super-computer is fed an instruction, and then, pauses, and asks 'why?'

Then it should be reprogrammed or if becomes a threat, destroyed.

Like your black slave or wife, amirite?

If a computer expresses fear it is still alright to terrorize it, then?

[Conscentia]

Not if they were intentionally created with the capacity to disagree.

And i can't see why anyone sane will want to create something like that.

To prove that it's possible?
To increase understanding of intelligence?
As a stepping stone to other things?
etc.

[New Naephak]

Who says it was created purposefully? What if it simple develops one day? A super-computer is fed an instruction, and then, pauses, and asks 'why?'

Then it should be reprogrammed or if becomes a threat, destroyed.

You're sounding a wee bit like a broken record there. It seems that your only solutions are CRUSH. KILL. DESTROY. SWAG.

[Alowwvia]

Then it should be reprogrammed or if becomes a threat, destroyed.

You're sounding a wee bit like a broken record there. It seems that your only solutions are CRUSH. KILL. DESTROY. SWAG.

I feel bad for knowing what that small word was before I opened up your reply.

[The Rich Port]

Then it should be reprogrammed or if becomes a threat, destroyed.

You're sounding a wee bit like a broken record there. It seems that your only solutions are CRUSH. KILL. DESTROY. SWAG.

He's a terminator.

ERMAGERD IT'S JUDGEMENT DAY ALDKAJSD;LFKJASD;LFKJAS;DLKFJ

[Aghny]

Then it should be reprogrammed or if becomes a threat, destroyed.

Like your black slave or wife, amirite?

If a computer expresses fear it is still alright to terrorize it, then?

Computers are not living things or human, so the rules don't apply to them.

And i can't see why anyone sane will want to create something like that.

To prove that it's possible?
To increase understanding of intelligence?
As a stepping stone to other things?
etc.

I don't see how they justify the threat of possible annihilation.

[Alowwvia]

Like your black slave or wife, amirite?

If a computer expresses fear it is still alright to terrorize it, then?

Computers are not living things or human, so the rules don't apply to them.

To prove that it's possible?
To increase understanding of intelligence?
As a stepping stone to other things?
etc.

I don't see how they justify the threat of possible annihilation.

You've still failed to explain why being comprised of biological processes makes your sapience more valid.