Would an AI have a right to live?

[Alancar]

Cows are alive. Is it a crime to kill cows?

It doesn't matter if AI's are alive or not. Being alive doesn't give you rights.

Do animals, plants and other living creatures have rights? Some. You can kill a cow, but you cannot torture one. But regardless of what rights animals have, they don't come close to the rights humans have.

And what is the moral justification for this fact? Sapience. Humans are intelligent, self-aware, capable of empathy, etc, etc...

If we were to ever meet an alien life form with these abilities, we would recognize its rights. Therefore if we were to make a machine with these abilities there could be no moral justification not to give it these rights.

[Camicon]

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.

That is an absolute lie.

[New Naephak]

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.

You're cherry-picking, and haven't cited any sources yourself.

[Aghny]

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

That is an absolute lie.

Proof ? And do take the whole post into consideration before replying please, if that is not too much to ask.

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

You're cherry-picking, and haven't cited any sources yourself.

I don't have a reason to disprove your beliefs or statements if you can't prove them in the first place.

[Wisconsin9]

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.

Well then, do you believe my parents should have the right to kill me?

[Morganutopia]

Can a AI be a slave?
IDK


Are we "alive" or is it a tool we made so we dont kill?

[Aghny]

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

Well then, do you believe my parents should have the right to kill me?

You will find my reply to it if you can bother to read back a few pages. If you can't, that is not my fault.

[Conscentia]

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.

1.
a. Not always. I don't like a lot of Picasso's art, and I can't tell you why.
b. An amputated limb has human DNA, is it a person?

2. That doesn't mean that I don't think that thy opinion abhorrent & despicable.

[New Naephak]

That is an absolute lie.

Proof ? And do take the whole post into consideration before replying please, if that is not too much to ask.

You're cherry-picking, and haven't cited any sources yourself.

I don't have a reason to disprove your beliefs or statements if you can't prove them in the first place.

Ah, here's the onus probandi. See, the thing is, you made the claim. You have to prove it. Not us.

[Conscentia]

Can a AI be a slave?
IDK

A person who is property of another person is a slave.
Many would (correctly) regard a sapient AI to be a person.

[Camicon]

That is an absolute lie.

Proof ? And do take the whole post into consideration before replying please, if that is not too much to ask.

I gave you two sources on the last page. Go back and find them.

[Morganutopia]

Are we "alive" or is it a tool we made so we dont kill or rape?

[Conscentia]

Cows are alive. Is it a crime to kill cows?

It doesn't matter if AI's are alive or not. Being alive doesn't give you rights.

Do animals, plants and other living creatures have rights? Some. You can kill a cow, but you cannot torture one. But regardless of what rights animals have, they don't come close to the rights humans have.

And what is the moral justification for this fact? Sapience. Humans are intelligent, self-aware, capable of empathy, etc, etc...

If we were to ever meet an alien life form with these abilities, we would recognize its rights. Therefore if we were to make a machine with these abilities there could be no moral justification not to give it these rights.

[Aghny]

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.

1.
a. Not always. I don't like a lot of Picasso's art, and I can't tell you why.
b. An amputated limb has human DNA, is it a person?

2. That doesn't mean that I don't think that thy opinion abhorrent & despicable.

1.
a. Just because you can't express it doesn't meant it isn't there
b. No, neither is an AI

2. Hence the reason why i said subjective

Proof ? And do take the whole post into consideration before replying please, if that is not too much to ask.



I don't have a reason to disprove your beliefs or statements if you can't prove them in the first place.

Ah, here's the onus probandi. See, the thing is, you made the claim. You have to prove it. Not us.

Like i said, i have yet to see any info that merits such an action from my part

[Morganutopia]

If we were to ever meet an alien life form with these abilities thay do not have a right to live.

[Aghny]

Proof ? And do take the whole post into consideration before replying please, if that is not too much to ask.

I gave you two sources on the last page. Go back and find them.

Philosophical and ethical ones. Those are not sources any more than simple opinions.

[Yankee Empire]

Whatyou mean we shoul djust ignore every work of literature warning against the dangers of such and just blindly march forewards so some lazy douchbag can have a robot butler? Or say "Cool Imade an A.I.?"

american people have the worst insults ever:

"your a douchebag dude"
"bro you are such a jerk man"
"dude you are a fag"
"your a pussy bro"
"douche bag!"
"jerk!"

Seriously, what the ****

And what are you?

[Morganutopia]

I gave you two sources on the last page. Go back and find them.

Philosophical and ethical ones. Those are not sources any more than simple opinions.

i second this motion:clap:

[Bojikami]

Yes.

[Saubre]

Unless an AI suddenly feels emotions without outside influence or asks questions about its existence, then one could argue for its sentience.

Though, If the AI does manage to show emotion of any sort, then it's most likely due to the fact it was given artificially.

I can see no possibility as to how a machine of any sort would suddenly gain one day sentience by itself.

Only humans can have emotions, (Don't be a smart ass and say animals have emotions too. What I'm implying should be clear.) hence emotions are an alien concept to AI unless programmed or given by their creators.

Therefore, they can't achieve true sentience since most likely their very emotions are fake.

[Conscentia]

1.
a. Not always. I don't like a lot of Picasso's art, and I can't tell you why.
b. An amputated limb has human DNA, is it a person?

2. That doesn't mean that I don't think that thy opinion abhorrent & despicable.

1.
a. Just because you can't express it doesn't meant it isn't there
b. No, neither is an AI

2. Hence the reason why i said subjective

1. Argument by assertion is a fallacy, and it's getting old. Sources?

[Aghny]

1.
a. Just because you can't express it doesn't meant it isn't there
b. No, neither is an AI

2. Hence the reason why i said subjective

1. Argument by assertion is a fallacy, and it's getting old. Sources?

source for what exactly ?

[Conscentia]

I gave you two sources on the last page. Go back and find them.

Philosophical and ethical ones. Those are not sources any more than simple opinions.

This entire thread is opinions.

[The Rich Port]

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.

... What the fuck are you blithering on about?

[Camicon]

I gave you two sources on the last page. Go back and find them.

Philosophical and ethical ones. Those are not sources any more than simple opinions.

Peer-reviewed papers. Not just opinions.

If you're looking for scientific papers that prove AI's are alive, despite the fact that we've never created a sapient AI to actually observe... well...