Would an AI have a right to live?

[Conscentia]

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.

1. Er... what? Why wouldn't we?
2. An AI is not automatically capable of causing the extinction of the human species.

[Empire of Akebulan]

So far there aren't any AIs that run biological processes so they by definition can't really live.

Biological is only different in how it works verses why it works. Biology of a human-made AI would be technology to us. If the AI can prefer to live than it should (and be subject to our rules) if it doesnt care wether its off or on, fuck it.

[New Naephak]

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.

Nature wouldn't say anything, as it's a personification of the effects of laws of the universe.

[The Rich Port]

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?

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.

... You're really hard to understand.

Human brains kinda work the same way. Screw up a couple nerves and the whole thing goes kaput.

Says you.

Yes, war IS adorable.

We're not the ones bringing up Robot Overlords.

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.

Actually, I've heard predictions within our lifetime, if we're all under 30, considering the rate of the development of computer technology.

"I think, therefore I am."

Probably yes.

Funny how such a painfully obvious fact is debated by people who don't understand how introspection works.

[Aghny]

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.

1. Er... what? Why wouldn't we?
2. An AI is not automatically capable of causing the extinction of the human species.

1) We don't need to. We dictate the rules.
2) Are we talking about AI as in robots with AI or just AI as in software ? If the latter then you are right.

[Aghny]

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.

Nature wouldn't say anything, as it's a personification of the effects of laws of the universe.

How many more strawmen do you have ?

Actually, I've heard predictions within our lifetime, if we're all under 30, considering the rate of the development of computer technology.

Well, then time will tell, but i do consider that highly unlikely.

[Conscentia]

1. Er... what? Why wouldn't we?
2. An AI is not automatically capable of causing the extinction of the human species.

1) We don't need to. We dictate the rules.
2) Are we talking about AI as in robots with AI or just AI as in software ? If the latter then you are right.

1. An AI would be able to learn. (ie. Make it's own rules.)
2. Both. Some software doesn't automatically have the power to cause human extinction, and neither does an intelligent robot in some engineering laboratory somewhere.

[The Rich Port]

Well, then time will tell, but i do consider that highly unlikely.

Time tends to be an asshole to us humans.

Just sayin'.

1) We don't need to. We dictate the rules.
2) Are we talking about AI as in robots with AI or just AI as in software ? If the latter then you are right.

1. An AI would be able to learn. (ie. Make it's own rules.)
2. Both. Some software doesn't automatically have the power to cause human extinction, and neither does an intelligent robot in some engineering laboratory somewhere.

Wimpy nerd robots.

[Salandriagado]

1. Er... what? Why wouldn't we?
2. An AI is not automatically capable of causing the extinction of the human species.

1) We don't need to. We dictate the rules.

You appear to have entirely missed the point of morality.

2) Are we talking about AI as in robots with AI or just AI as in software ? If the latter then you are right.

You also appear to have entirely missed the definition of "AI".





And yes, it would. My argument is simple: A human created artificially by cloning would have these rights. A human created by very high level genetic manipulation would have these rights. The only difference between the two artificial constructs is in the form of the hardware, not the base function of the mind. Thus, the AI has those rights.

[Aghny]

1) We don't need to. We dictate the rules.
2) Are we talking about AI as in robots with AI or just AI as in software ? If the latter then you are right.

1. An AI would be able to learn. (ie. Make it's own rules.)
2. Both. Some software doesn't automatically have the power to cause human extinction, and neither does an intelligent robot in some engineering laboratory somewhere.

1) And it shouldn't be allowed to

2) Robots (plural) can however pose a credible threat more than a software.

[The Zeonic States]

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.

... You're really hard to understand.

Human brains kinda work the same way. Screw up a couple nerves and the whole thing goes kaput.

Says you.

Yes, war IS adorable.

We're not the ones bringing up Robot Overlords.

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

Actually, I've heard predictions within our lifetime, if we're all under 30, considering the rate of the development of computer technology.

"I think, therefore I am."

Probably yes.

Funny how such a painfully obvious fact is debated by people who don't understand how introspection works.

Their Cognition Abilities you realize the thing that allows them to learn and adapt?

It is a Human construct.

If they were made sentient it would be due to Human allowance of that fact.

My Point is we are the Creator species in this relationship.

And War? More like a few people turning off a computer monitor or smashing a blue box.

Suely people wouldn't be stupid enough joint link machine's into a sterotypical control network.

I do believe AI's will be an expensive creation after all no doubt the a few people would bother with engineering them despite their appeal of improving preformance.

Honestly thats another reason "rights" for these scraps of tin is unlikely.

You spend a few billion or trillion units of currency and then you can't even use it?

Yeah no.

[Aghny]

1) We don't need to. We dictate the rules.

You appear to have entirely missed the point of morality.

2) Are we talking about AI as in robots with AI or just AI as in software ? If the latter then you are right.

You also appear to have entirely missed the definition of "AI".

1) Morality is subjective

2) Different people use different terms in different way.

3) You can't create life in the sense you can create a software or a machine.

[Salandriagado]

1. An AI would be able to learn. (ie. Make it's own rules.)
2. Both. Some software doesn't automatically have the power to cause human extinction, and neither does an intelligent robot in some engineering laboratory somewhere.

1) And it shouldn't be allowed to

Why the fuck not?

2) Robots (plural) can however pose a credible threat more than a software.

And orders of magnitude less than the threat posed by humans.

[Cannot think of a name]

How would they be competing for that? And they can adapt to do the Watusi, why would they if we didn't give them that need.

Assuming they can create more of themselves, at some point they would certainly be competing for those, similar to what we are doing now vs animals and all.

Do we give them an overwhelming need to reproduce? Why did we give them that?

Also it doesn't matter whether we give them the need or not. They will be able to evolve to gain that need. Otherwise they are still not true AI yet.

We have to give them the ability to 'evolve' into dominance craving creatures in order for them to be alive? Why?

[Camicon]

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

Bostrom, Nick, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. "The ethics of artificial intelligence." Draft for Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (2011).
"AIs with sufficiently advanced mental states, or the right kind of states, will have moral status, and some may count as persons..." (Bostrom & Yudkowsky, 18)

More, Max. "The Philosophy of Transhumanism." (2013).
"Creatures with similar levels of sapience, sentience, and personhood are accorded similar status no matter whether they are humans, animals, cyborgs, machine intelligences, or aliens." (More, 13)

[Conscentia]

1. An AI would be able to learn. (ie. Make it's own rules.)
2. Both. Some software doesn't automatically have the power to cause human extinction, and neither does an intelligent robot in some engineering laboratory somewhere.

1) And it shouldn't be allowed to
2) Robots (plural) can however pose a credible threat more than a software.

1. Why not?
2. They don't necessarily pose any more threat than any group of humans.

[Aghny]

More than a wikipedia article.

Also

Bostrom, Nick, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. "The ethics of artificial intelligence." Draft for Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (2011).
"AIs with sufficiently advanced mental states, or the right kind of states, will have moral status, and some may count as persons..." (Bostrom & Yudkowsky, 18)

More, Max. "The Philosophy of Transhumanism." (2013).
"Creatures with similar levels of sapience, sentience, and personhood are accorded similar status no matter whether they are humans, animals, cyborgs, machine intelligences, or aliens." (More, 13)

You are linking a source about ethics and another about philosophy ? It was better with just wikipedia.

1) And it shouldn't be allowed to
2) Robots (plural) can however pose a credible threat more than a software.

1. Why not?
2. They don't necessarily pose any more threat than any group of humans.

1) They are nothing more than tools that we create for our convenience. They have no right other than what their owners choose to give them.

2) Only they are different species. We don't actively encourage the breeding of mosquitoes now do we ?

[The Rich Port]

I do believe AI's will be an expensive creation after all no doubt the a few people would bother with engineering them despite their appeal of improving preformance.

You spend a few billion or trillion units of currency and then you can't even use it?

Yeah no.

And... Being creators gives us what over them?

Actually, I'll give you that. Maybe humans will be too stupid and lazy to make AIs.

I'm certain they'll feel terrible for inconveniencing you. They'll I.O.U. you like America did to China's mom.

[The Constitutional Land of Freedom]

...Not until I got to the bottom of the OP did I realize you were referring to Artificial Intelligence, not an Artificial Insemination. Apparently I've been around horses too long. =P

Regardless, no, I don't believe robots should deserve human rights.

[Tule]

No different than you, not by much. You are, after all, only chemicals acting in sequence.

There is no equivalence. Cut off the electricity and it does not exist, while a human is never turned off until death.

False, you can shut the brain down completely and turn it on again.

[Conscentia]

1. Why not?
2. They don't necessarily pose any more threat than any group of humans.

1) a. They are nothing more than tools that we create for our convenience. b. They have no right other than what their owners choose to give them.
2) Only they are different species. We don't actively encourage the breeding of mosquitoes now do we ?

1.
a. I told you before, not all things are created to serve.
b. Slave owners agree.

2. So?

[The Rich Port]

There is no equivalence. Cut off the electricity and it does not exist, while a human is never turned off until death.

False, you can shut the brain down completely and turn it on again.

It's things like these that make me want to be a mad scientist.

[Camicon]

Bostrom, Nick, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. "The ethics of artificial intelligence." Draft for Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (2011).
"AIs with sufficiently advanced mental states, or the right kind of states, will have moral status, and some may count as persons..." (Bostrom & Yudkowsky, 18)

More, Max. "The Philosophy of Transhumanism." (2013).
"Creatures with similar levels of sapience, sentience, and personhood are accorded similar status no matter whether they are humans, animals, cyborgs, machine intelligences, or aliens." (More, 13)

You are linking a source about ethics and another about philosophy ? It was better with just wikipedia.

Whether or not an AI is alive, and deserving of personhood, is an argument about ethics and philosophy. Those are peer-reviewed articles that deal with the ethics and philosophy surrounding personhood of non-biological entities. It is exactly what this thread is about.

[Aghny]

1) a. They are nothing more than tools that we create for our convenience. b. They have no right other than what their owners choose to give them.
2) Only they are different species. We don't actively encourage the breeding of mosquitoes now do we ?

1.
a. I told you before, not all things are created to serve.
b. Slave owners agree.

2. So?

1) a) But we are creating them and there is no need to create them other than to serve considering the potential risks.
b) Slaves are not artificially created robots. They are human.

2) Meaning they shouldn't be treated the same as humans.

[Crumlark]

No different than you, not by much. You are, after all, only chemicals acting in sequence.

There is no equivalence. Cut off the electricity and it does not exist, while a human is never turned off until death.

The human brain controls the body using electrical impulses. You are good as dead with your own electricity cut off.