Would an AI have a right to live?

[Morganutopia]

"emotion"is a tool are thay not.

[Yankee Empire]

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.

I quote myself in response, as you didn't reply:

So thy argument is basically the Matrix films?
Intelligence doesn't necessarily lead to dominance. Albert Einstein wasn't emperor of the world.
Edit: Also, what do you mean by "dominance"?

So your argument is basically, Not having one?

Or no is it "Everythings fine, Everythings fine..."?

[Northern Molovsky]

Does this unit have a soul?
Geth or Quarians?

[Despoticania]

Of course it would.

[Conscentia]

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

source for what exactly ?

· I said sources. (Plurals... notice them.)
· I want you to provide support for thy assertion that a sapient artificial intelligence is not a person.

[The Rich Port]

Geth or Quarians?

*clears throat*

[Aghny]

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...

1) Opinions nevertheless.

2) Yay, you understood what i was getting yet. Also we do have an idea to create a theory though.

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

This entire thread is opinions.

Then, why in the name of anything are we arguing ?

[Yankee Empire]

source for what exactly ?

· I said sources. (Plurals... notice them.)
· I want you to provide support for thy assertion that a sapient artificial intelligence is not a person.

Provide a source that they are, or could be.

[New Naephak]

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

You're the one who made the claim. You have to prove it. The burden of proof is not on us.

[Morganutopia]

Do all men and women have a right to live? no so i think it is wrong to give them to a tool.

[AETEN II]

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

The definition of life can be applied to AI's, especially AI's, as they would fit all the requirements to life. Not to mention that our brains are simply biological computers. Hell, computers are so similar to our brains (we both use electrical stimulation for transmissions) that we can actually directly interface with them. So long as the AI was sapient and not omnicidal, it'd have as much right to life as a human organism. Just so long as it wasn't Skynet.

[New Naephak]

· I said sources. (Plurals... notice them.)
· I want you to provide support for thy assertion that a sapient artificial intelligence is not a person.

Provide a source that they are, or could be.

Once again, onus probandi. Onus probandi everywhere.

[Conscentia]

· I said sources. (Plurals... notice them.)
· I want you to provide support for thy assertion that a sapient artificial intelligence is not a person.

Provide a source that they are, or could be.

Camicon has.

[Yankee Empire]

Provide a source that they are, or could be.

Once again, onus probandi. Onus probandi everywhere.

Truly.

[The Rich Port]

Do all men and women have a right to live? no so i think it is wrong to give them to a tool.

... Dumb post, or THE DUMBEST post?

[Camicon]

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...

Yay, you understood what i was getting yet.

What I want to say would undoubtedly get me banned, so I won't say it.

However...
This entire thread is based upon the hypothesis that we create a sapient AI. SAPIENCE DEFINES PERSONHOOD.
This thread is based up on the hypothesis that WE CREATED AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON.
The argument is about whether or not the PEOPLE ARE DESERVING OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.

Get it?

[Yankee Empire]

Provide a source that they are, or could be.

Camicon has.

Where? Also specifically im saying are, not could.And even then is this conclusive or theorizing?

[Aghny]

· I said sources. (Plurals... notice them.)
· I want you to provide support for thy assertion that a sapient artificial intelligence is not a person.

Provide a source that they are, or could be.

This.

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

You're the one who made the claim. You have to prove it. The burden of proof is not on us.

Only you have posted nothing that requires me to actually back up my claims with any sort of proof. The burden of proof contrary to what you think is actually on both parties.

[Aghny]

[region-tag=][/region-tag]

Yay, you understood what i was getting yet.

What I want to say would undoubtedly get me banned, so I won't say it.

However...
This entire thread is based upon the hypothesis that we create a sapient AI. SAPIENCE DEFINES PERSONHOOD.
This thread is based up on the hypothesis that WE CREATED AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON.
The argument is about whether or not the PEOPLE ARE DESERVING OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.

Get it?

Only a few things.

1) Sapience doesn't define personhood scientifically
2) AI are not persons unless ofcourse proved scientifically
3) AI are not people unless ofcourse proved scientifically

[Esternial]

If it fits the three qualifications:

A) It must grow and exhibit metabolism. Granted, an AI can't exhibit any metabolism because of what they are. If it can expand its own coding and create new coding, it might partly pass this requirement.

B) It must reproduce. Copying its code and producing a 'copy' on its own accord seems very plausible.

C) It must adapt. Through extensive coding an AI may be capable of adapting to its environment.

So maybe it won't fit the conventional definition of 'life', but it may be considered as a form of life. The only problem is that it doesn't use the mechanisms that were used to determine these rules, most notably DNA and/or RNA.

But still, if we try to make an analogy from biological life to synthetic, we could find some similarities. DNA is the carrier of information, and the information stored there can be expressed in bytes. Thus, bytes are a simplified form of DNA, a possible unit of measurement of information. The only reason our DNA is 'worth' anything is because there are mechanisms that are capable of translating this code.

An AI will have these mechanisms and this code. It has a form of synthetic 'genetic' information.

Should we ever create an AI complex like this, we'll have to expand our concept of 'life' itself. We'll have to use the terms organic and synthetic life.

Also, 'life' is a philosophical term. It can be approached from a philosophical viewpoint.

[Mexicanada]

Depends. If the AI is a benevolent, reasonable program like Cortana, then of course. But if it is an aggressive program like SKYNET then HEEEYULL NO

[Conscentia]

You're the one who made the claim. You have to prove it. The burden of proof is not on us.

Only you have posted nothing that requires me to actually back up my claims with any sort of proof. The burden of proof contrary to what you think is actually on both parties.

That's not how this works. You have posted something that requires you to actually back up thy claims.

[Wisconsin9]

Depends. If the AI is a benevolent, reasonable program like Cortana, then of course. But if it is an aggressive program like SKYNET then HEEEYULL NO

Good thing no AI would ever have reason to become aggressive... unless we tried to kill it first.

[Frisivisia]

If it's sentient and self-aware, I see no reason why not.

[Morganutopia]

Do all men and women have a right to live? no so i think it is wrong to give them to a tool.

... Dumb post, or THE DUMBEST post?

why is it Dumb well kill all the time.
we do not give the " right to live?" to all humans so why give it to a AI.