Would an AI have a right to live?

[Conscentia]

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

I don't think you know what science is.

[Aghny]

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.

And so have you. Hence it is not entirely my responsibility. Simply saying it is is not how it works either.

[Yankee Empire]

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.

You know what they say about opinions...

You can't accurately predict such a thing, there are too many variables.

Jeez you could say that about a bunch of peopel and yet, random murders occur all the time.

[New Naephak]

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.

Yes, we have posted sources, the problem is that you have been cherry-picking and moving the goalposts to no end.

[Akitawnui]

You must take into consideration the level of human intelligence and intellectualism in the form of consciousness..something no other species of animal has yet to acquire, or so we're told, with possibly the exception of dolphins. In terms of consciousness I don't mean the idea of a streaming objective experience, but the subjective, will to power, knowing the consequences of ones actions. If an AI has this ability, I do believe there is a right to be physically and metaphysically present in our perception of reality. However if the AI is strictly utilitarian, with no subconscious desires or cultural characteristics, then by all means, pull the plug.

[Wisconsin9]

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

You know what they say about opinions...

You can't accurately predict such a thing, there are too many variables.

Jeez you could say that about a bunch of peopel and yet, random murders occur all the time.

And in most cases there's some kind of reason.

[Conscentia]

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

And so have you. Hence it is not entirely my responsibility. Simply saying it is is not how it works either.

We have provided support for our arguments. You have not.
Even if you believe that we have not provided support, that does not mean that you are exempt for having to supply support for thy own assertions.

[Aghny]

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

I don't think you know what science is.

Well i don't consider philosophy and ethics as science. All the same, the lack of source is still there.

[Esternial]

:palm: I don't think you know what science is.

Well i don't consider philosophy and ethics as science. All the same, the lack of source is still there.

They can be applied in science, though. Doesn't make them less useful.

In my opinion philosophy is quite useful in the field of science.

[Frisivisia]

I don't think you know what science is.

Well i don't consider philosophy and ethics as science. All the same, the lack of source is still there.

History is not science, therefore untrue and illogical. Duh.

[Aghny]

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.

Yes, we have posted sources, the problem is that you have been cherry-picking and moving the goalposts to no end.

I already explicitly mentioned what the "goal posts" were.

And so have you. Hence it is not entirely my responsibility. Simply saying it is is not how it works either.

We have provided support for our arguments. You have not.
Even if you believe that we have not provided support, that does not mean that you are exempt for having to supply support for thy own assertions.

No you haven't. Not anything that is not subjective anyways.

[Camicon]

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

No, they don't, because sapience and personhood do not make claims about the universe. They make claims about what makes "people" people, which is inherently a debate centered around ethics and philosophy.

[Conscentia]

I don't think you know what science is.

Well i don't consider philosophy and ethics as science. All the same, the lack of source is still there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

[Aghny]

Well i don't consider philosophy and ethics as science. All the same, the lack of source is still there.

They can be applied in science, though. Doesn't make them less useful.

In my opinion philosophy is quite useful in the field of science.

Only you can't prove ethical or philosophical claims as far as i am aware. Then again those two are not really my strong fields.

Well i don't consider philosophy and ethics as science. All the same, the lack of source is still there.

History is not science, therefore untrue and illogical. Duh.

More strawmen ?

[Frisivisia]

They can be applied in science, though. Doesn't make them less useful.

In my opinion philosophy is quite useful in the field of science.

Only you can't prove ethical or philosophical claims as far as i am aware. Then again those two are not really my strong fields.

History is not science, therefore untrue and illogical. Duh.

More strawmen ?

It's not a straw man when it's an accurate representation of what you're saying.

[Conscentia]

We have provided support for our arguments. You have not.
Even if you believe that we have not provided support, that does not mean that you are exempt for having to supply support for thy own assertions.

No you haven't. Not anything that is not subjective anyways.

Did you deliberately ignore the second line of my post?

[Uelvan]

You'd have to prove the AI is alive, and not just mimicing something that is alive. If it were that case, you'd be nothing more than a little kid crying when his/her favorite toy was broken, and refusing to get a new one is done so out of selfishness. In such case, if the AI needed to be destroyed or reprogrammed.

[Sociobiology]

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

I don't think you know what science is.

or law.

[Alancar]

Sapience doesn't define personhood scientifically

Because the definition of personhood is not a scientific question. It's a philosophical/legal question

[Alowwvia]

You must take into consideration the level of human intelligence and intellectualism in the form of consciousness..something no other species of animal has yet to acquire, or so we're told, with possibly the exception of dolphins. In terms of consciousness I don't mean the idea of a streaming objective experience, but the subjective, will to power, knowing the consequences of ones actions. If an AI has this ability, I do believe there is a right to be physically and metaphysically present in our perception of reality. However if the AI is strictly utilitarian, with no subconscious desires or cultural characteristics, then by all means, pull the plug.

Five Star Post Motherfucker.

[Aghny]

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

No, they don't, because sapience and personhood do not make claims about the universe. They make claims about what makes "people" people, which is inherently a debate centered around ethics and philosophy.

and as i have said, i don't have any interest in discussing ethics and philosophy. My views on that was biological. I don't mind what the ethical and philosophical definitions are.

Well i don't consider philosophy and ethics as science. All the same, the lack of source is still there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Ofcourse maths is also a science, there is also social science and all that, but not my point.

[Frisivisia]

You must take into consideration the level of human intelligence and intellectualism in the form of consciousness..something no other species of animal has yet to acquire, or so we're told, with possibly the exception of dolphins. In terms of consciousness I don't mean the idea of a streaming objective experience, but the subjective, will to power, knowing the consequences of ones actions. If an AI has this ability, I do believe there is a right to be physically and metaphysically present in our perception of reality. However if the AI is strictly utilitarian, with no subconscious desires or cultural characteristics, then by all means, pull the plug.

Five Star Post Motherfucker.

Thank you, Chuck Norris.

[Norstal]

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.

Well, I mean, yeah. Metaphysical claims can't be proven. That's stupid.

Why don't you prove that validity is valid while we're at it?

[Knowlandia]

You know AI exists now right?

Have you ever played a video game against NPCs? Have you ever killed them? If so, you have violated an AIs right to life.

[Sociobiology]

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

personhood is not defined scientifically.

2) AI are not persons unless ofcourse proved scientifically

personhood is not defined scientifically

3) AI are not people unless ofcourse proved scientifically

define people. because there is no scientific definition.