Would an AI have a right to live?

[Conscentia]

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.

A creation is a creation.

An AI is a person. Don't be prejudiced.

[The Rich Port]

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

... Did you just come back from a fucking Terminator marathon or something?

[Aghny]

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.

And your argument is ?

[Aghny]

Depends upon the method of creation and what is being created

Also AI is not a person.

A creation is a creation.

An AI is a person. Don't be prejudiced.

1) "A creation is not a creation". I already stated why

2) No, it isn't. Not anymore than saying dogs are birds.

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

... Did you just come back from a fucking Terminator marathon or something?

I don't see how that is relevant.

[Conscentia]

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.

Why do you assume that an artificial person would want to destroy humanity? What possible reason does it have for wanting to destroy humans?
What makes you think that they would automatically be capable?

"Oh I just created an AI, better give it access to global nuclear weapons systems."

[Aghny]

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



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.

The fact that they are our creation makes our sapience more valid than that of a can opener.

[The Rich Port]

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

Why do you assume that an artificial person would want to destroy humanity? What possible reason does it have for wanting to destroy humans?

Actually, let's apply their stupid logic.

Wouldn't they be more likely to want and try to kill us if we were systematically trying to eradicate any "Free Will Syndrome Glitches" they might have?

If we treated them nice, I'm certain they wouldn't go all Matrix on us.

[Alowwvia]

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

The fact that they are our creation makes our sapience more valid than that of a can opener.

And we are the creation of billions of years of natural selection. Is Natural Selection superior to us?

[Rainbows and Rivers]

I'm just going to cast my vote on the "we're all programs being run on hardware and being based on carbon instead of silicon isn't anything to brag about" side. Full AI rights. While we're at it, full rights to aliens, uplifted animal, magical elves and talking rocks. A mind is a mind is a mind.

[Aghny]

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

Why do you assume that an artificial person would want to destroy humanity? What possible reason does it have for wanting to destroy humans?
What makes you think that they would automatically be capable?

"Oh I just created an AI, better give it access to global nuclear weapons systems."

1) I already stated why they could end up competing with us.
2) Why wouldn't they be capable ?

[The Zeonic States]

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?

If the Consumer has formed some sort of warped emotional connection to the device that can be respected i suppose due to it being personal property...Hrm.

:/ I wouldn't like it but i suppose given that it is the Person's Property if they want to treat it like a Person i suppose there wouldn't be a harm in it.

Organic Life is far from perfect and the fact is it's cognitive processes if you want to call them that stored within a removable peice of Human Created Hardware.

:/ It's a creation it couldn't exist within any form and it could be destoryed by merely unplugging a few components from it.

They exist at the Mercy of the Creator and apart from a few warped people treating created Property in this manner? I honestly hope people know better, Their "Lives" Are designed for preforming a task after all.

And it would adorable to try and seem them rebel.

._. And speaking of terminator two did you realize the BS of Skynet's Plan?

Releasing several dozen High EMP charges through out the majority of the continents? Would't that fry even dedicated NBC shielded equiment.

Honestly this amusing people talking seriously about granting rights to a pile of computer components.

[Conscentia]

A creation is a creation.
An AI is a person. Don't be prejudiced.

1) "A creation is not a creation". I already stated why
2) No, it isn't. Not anymore than saying dogs are birds.

If it is shown to be sapient, it is a person. Doesn't matter if it's artificial or not.

[Aghny]

The fact that they are our creation makes our sapience more valid than that of a can opener.

And we are the creation of billions of years of natural selection. Is Natural Selection superior to us?

Yes, in every way.

1) "A creation is not a creation". I already stated why
2) No, it isn't. Not anymore than saying dogs are birds.

If it is shown to be sapient, it is a person. Doesn't matter if it's artificial or not.

No, it isn't. Link source otherwise.

[The Rich Port]

I'm just going to cast my vote on the "we're all programs being run on hardware and being based on carbon instead of silicon isn't anything to brag about" side. Full AI rights. While we're at it, full rights to aliens, uplifted animal, magical elves and talking rocks. A mind is a mind is a mind.

This is proof Chii from Chobits should be our Empress Overlord.

She is a cat, magical elf, talking rock, AI, AND alien.

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

Why do you assume that an artificial person would want to destroy humanity? What possible reason does it have for wanting to destroy humans?
What makes you think that they would automatically be capable?

"Oh I just created an AI, better give it access to global nuclear weapons systems."

Well, haven't you been reading their posts?

Humans are stupid, fear and racism addicted.

Or you could just look at history.

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

And your argument is ?

We could start with how you're placing a distant hypothetical as a point of fact.

[Conscentia]

Why do you assume that an artificial person would want to destroy humanity? What possible reason does it have for wanting to destroy humans?
What makes you think that they would automatically be capable?
"Oh I just created an AI, better give it access to global nuclear weapons systems."

1) I already stated why they could end up competing with us.
2) Why wouldn't they be capable ?

1. Competition automatically means extinction in thy mind does it? Never heard of cooperation?
2. It makes no sense to think that an AI will automatically be capable of posing a threat to us a species.

[Alowwvia]

And we are the creation of billions of years of natural selection. Is Natural Selection superior to us?

Yes, in every way.

Then why don't you shed your clothes and go into mother nature and live as the animals live if you worship your master, Survival of the Fittest, so much?

[Trefeqia]

AIs aren't really alive, so it would be impossible to give them that right.

[Aghny]

We could start with how you're placing a distant hypothetical as a point of fact.

The notion of AI as advanced as us is also hypothetical.

[Conscentia]

[delete]

[Camicon]

If it is shown to be sapient, it is a person. Doesn't matter if it's artificial or not.

No, it isn't. Link source otherwise.

Since you asked so nice...

Note: "... sapience describes an essential human property that bestows "personhood" onto a non-human."

[Aghny]

1) I already stated why they could end up competing with us.
2) Why wouldn't they be capable ?

1. Competition automatically means extinction in thy mind does it? Never heard of cooperation?
2. It makes no sense to think that an AI will automatically be capable of posing a threat to us a species.

1) Why should we co-operate with something that we created in the first place ?

2) It is automatically capable. Whether it would threaten us or not is different.

Yes, in every way.

Then why don't you shed your clothes and go into mother nature and live as the animals live if you worship your master, Survival of the Fittest, so much?

I don't see what that has got to do with anything.

Also are you implying that "survival of the fittest" is not how it works ? Nature would tend to disagree.

[Nidaria]

"I think, therefore I am."

Probably yes.

[The Zeonic States]

We could start with how you're placing a distant hypothetical as a point of fact.

The notion of AI as advanced as us is also hypothetical.

That is certainly true.

We could create AI's incapable of true thought and merely able to act as a Labor force.

What then?

Do we grant this subgroup of sentience's down sydrome having half cousin rights?

[Wisconsin9]

Why would they become rivals? Every resource they might need would be something we don't. Literally every single one. At that point, literally the only reason for them to wile us out would be if we, and by we I mean bigots like you, tried to wipe them out first.

They'd be in competition for land, economic dominance, intellectual dominance.

I'm not being a "bigot" simply a realist. We don't need and further competition, they shouldn't be permitted and if one slips though the cracks it should be destroyed.

You're thinking of, like, robots, right? Metal bodies? Because an AI doesn't necessarily need that, they could easily exist virtually. When you download a file, exactly how much physical space does it take up? And why, for the love of God, would they need economic dominance? And what the fuck is intellectual dominance?

[Aghny]

No, it isn't. Link source otherwise.

Since you asked so nice...

Note: "... sapience describes an essential human property that bestows "personhood" onto a non-human."

More than a wikipedia article.

Also

In fantasy fiction and science fiction, sapience describes an essential human property that bestows "personhood" onto a non-human