Would an AI have a right to live?

[Aghny]

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.

And my viewpoint is purely from a scientific perspective, more importantly a biological one. Ethics and philosophy are subjective and hence no use in arguing as everyone will have different opinions.

[Nadkor]

But corrupting is so much fun...

Unless you're the AI getting it's data corrupted.

I'd not want to be that AI. Windows bluescreens seem painful enough for inanimate computers, I can hardly imagine what they'd do to a somewhat-human AI.

Well, that's a joke that went right over your head...

[Thronegaria]

Although Chip Hazard and the other Commando Elite Soldiers in the Small Soldiers movie were rather douchebags, for AI toys standards.

(Image)

I remember this movie from my childhood!

[Conscentia]

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.

1.
a. Humans don't do everything because they have to. I watch comedic television programs, I don't have to, but I do.
Everything has potential risks.
b. They are people. Being human is irrelevant.

2. Discrimination and prejudice, you teach.

[The Zeonic States]

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.

You don't believe they Owe Their creator then?

You think that creating them is a kindness regardless fo the fianical and material expenses that will go into construct?

You think that the first AI's designed won't be for Military Usage and you think what? They will just gift the AI's freedom and say we just spent sixteen billion dollars building you and giving you the capabilities of a bank of super computers and designed you with dedicated prediction software for deterimining enemy troop movements and strengths but you are free to go now!

Forgetting that these constructs would be weighted to the floor due to their hardware.

Unless if you propose the creation of Droids or Geth i suppose but i will be the first to admit our techology isn't anywhere near advanced enough in Hydrolic lift techology for the creation of a mobile construct such as this given that these "Robots" Would be so far beyond in processing and computing power then those pale constructs seen within Japan thus far.

I could see a machine weighing several hundred pounds just from hardware, software and giving the thing capablity of movement.

Which just adds to the expense and fun.

:/ Yeah no these things are posessions at least until paid off.

[Morganutopia]

Artificial Intelligence have no rights thay can be "killed" .
but can thay live?

[Aghny]

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.

1.
a. Humans don't do everything because they have to. I watch comedic television programs, I don't have to, but I do.
Everything has potential risks.
b. They are people. Being human is irrelevant.

2. Discrimination and prejudice, you teach.

1.
a. yet we generally tend to do things for reasons regardless of how insignificant. And we make most of our decisions based on calculating risks.
b. If not human, they aren't people.

b. only if the non living can be discriminated and prejudiced against. Nothing wrong with that in this case either.

[Grocery Store Music]

Artificial Intelligence have no rights thay can be killed .

Huh?

[Thronegaria]

AI are not alive. they are machines.

[Morganutopia]

Artificial Intelligence have no rights thay can be killed .

Huh?

what

[Ironrite]

AI does not have biological components, so I would NOT classify it as something that can live.

[Zottistan]

AI are not alive. they are machines.

And what are people?

Machines made of squishy stuff.

[Morganutopia]

AI are not alive. they are machines.

but what is "alive".

[Thronegaria]

If we create them, we can "kill" them.

[Salandriagado]

AI does not have biological components, so I would NOT classify it as something that can live.

Kindly define "biologicial".

[Wisconsin9]

If we create them, we can "kill" them.

Then why do my parents not have the right to kill me?

[Camicon]

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.

And my viewpoint is purely from a scientific perspective, more importantly a biological one. Ethics and philosophy are subjective and hence no use in arguing as everyone will have different opinions.

Do, your viewpoint is steeped in ignorance, bigotry, and fear of difference. There is no scientific evidence that says life cannot be non-biological. There is no scientific evidence that says an AI is not alive. And whether or not a sapient AI is deserving of personhood and humans rights is an issue of ethics and philosophy.

You literally do not understand the words coming out of your mouth.

[Thronegaria]

AI are not alive. they are machines.

but what is "alive".

hum
good question

[Conscentia]

1.
a. Humans don't do everything because they have to. I watch comedic television programs, I don't have to, but I do.
Everything has potential risks.
b. They are people. Being human is irrelevant.

2. Discrimination and prejudice, you teach.

1.
a. yet we generally tend to do things for reasons regardless of how insignificant. And we make most of our decisions based on calculating risks.
b. If not human, they aren't people.

b. only if the non living can be discriminated and prejudiced against. Nothing wrong with that in this case either.

1.
a. Er, no. Most of our decisions are made on a whim. We want to watch TV, we watch TV. We want to eat something, we go eat something. etc.
b. Being human is irrelevant. All that matters is that you are sapient.

2. It's wrong to be prejudiced and practice discrimination in every case.

[Aghny]

AI are not alive. they are machines.

And what are people?

Machines made of squishy stuff.

AI are not alive. they are machines.

but what is "alive".

If we create them, we can "kill" them.

Then why do my parents not have the right to kill me?

Already discussed.

[Conscentia]

AI are not alive. they are machines.

but what is "alive".

I'm with Shrodinger

[The Zeonic States]

If we create them, we can "kill" them.

Then why do my parents not have the right to kill me?

Well there was this old book written a really long time ago that talked about this...

And apparently? If it's for God? As a test of faith?

Yes.

[Wisconsin9]

And what are people?

Machines made of squishy stuff.

but what is "alive".

Then why do my parents not have the right to kill me?

Already discussed.

And thoroughly discredited.

[Aghny]

And my viewpoint is purely from a scientific perspective, more importantly a biological one. Ethics and philosophy are subjective and hence no use in arguing as everyone will have different opinions.

Do, your viewpoint is steeped in ignorance, bigotry, and fear of difference. There is no scientific evidence that says life cannot be non-biological. There is no scientific evidence that says an AI is not alive. And whether or not a sapient AI is deserving of personhood and humans rights is an issue of ethics and philosophy.

You literally do not understand the words coming out of your mouth.

And guess what ? so far you have cited no sources to back up your claims. I already responed about ethics and philosophy.

1.
a. yet we generally tend to do things for reasons regardless of how insignificant. And we make most of our decisions based on calculating risks.
b. If not human, they aren't people.

b. only if the non living can be discriminated and prejudiced against. Nothing wrong with that in this case either.

1.
a. Er, no. Most of our decisions are made on a whim. We want to watch TV, we watch TV. We want to eat something, we go eat something. etc.
b. Being human is irrelevant. All that matters is that you are sapient.

2. It's wrong to be prejudiced and practice discrimination in every case.

1) a. Yet there are reasons
b. Not really, regardless of your opinion, being human is relevant, being sapient in and of itself is not however.

2). Not in this case. Although what is right and wrong is subjective.

[Aghny]

Already discussed.

And thoroughly discredited.

I don't see how. Because of opinions of people here in NS ? or based on ethics ? You have to do better than that.