Would an AI have a right to live?

[Alowwvia]

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.

That isn't AI in the sense we're talking about, not really. AI like that is a series of scripts, which are 'smarter' based on the complexity and design of the scripts.

In addition, the 'scripts' do not really 'die' when you kill the NPCs. The same scripts are recycled for later use.

[Aghny]

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

Only it isn't.

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?

I don't really have any intention of doing so.

or law.

I am not even going to start on "law".

[Camicon]

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.

There is no biological perspective on what makes a "person" a person. None. Whatsoever. And there never will be, because biology is a science, and determining personhood is not.

[Alowwvia]

If you have no interest in discussing ethics and philosophy, you've come into the wrong thread motherfucker. This thread is ABOUT ethics, meta-ethics, and so on.

[Aghny]

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.

If it is from a ethical and philosophical viewpoint, then i don't have any arguments as opinions do differ from person to person

[Conscentia]

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.

There is no biological definition of "person".

[Esternial]

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.

They make approaching abstract concepts much easier, which is useful in theoretical physics among other things.

As I said, "life" is originally a philosophical concept. Science defined it with what it knew at that time, which doesn't mean that the definition can't be reviewed or edition. Science doesn't stop, it's a constant process of peer-reviewed research and falsification. Our current definition of life is based on our current findings. If new findings arise, we will be forced to edit our definition. Saying "No, this is impossible, it should be like this and it can't be anything different" is not befitting of a true member in the field of science, especially in regard to abstract concepts like 'life'

Maybe you might want to look into Karl Popper..

Frankly, what you think to be science is wrong. Incomplete.

[Alancar]

i don't have any interest in discussing ethics and philosophy.

Then perhaps, you should not be here? The question of whether or not an AI is entitled human rights is a philosophical/ethical/legal issue. Not a scientific one.

[Dark Luna]

We shouldn't create artificial intelligence capable of being conscious in the first place.

[Sociobiology]

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.

no
not even close.

[Conscentia]

We shouldn't create artificial intelligence capable of being conscious in the first place.

Why not?

[Aghny]

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.

There is no biological perspective on what makes a "person" a person. None. Whatsoever. And there never will be, because biology is a science, and determining personhood is not.

Then i don't see how anyone can consider their opinions to be superior as none of this can be proven to be true or false objectively.

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.

They make approaching abstract concepts much easier, which is useful in theoretical physics among other things.

As I said, "life" is originally a philosophical concept. Science defined it with what it knew at that time, which doesn't mean that the definition can't be reviewed or edition. Science doesn't stop, it's a constant process of peer-reviewed research and falsification. Our current definition of life is based on our current findings. If new findings arise, we will be forced to edit our definition. Saying "No, this is impossible, it should be like this and it can't be anything different" is not befitting of a true member in the field of science, especially in regard to abstract concepts like 'life'

Maybe you might want to look into Karl Popper..

I don't disagree. However, we have an idea of what AI is atm though and we haven't felt the need to change the definition yet.

Also i can only go about with the current definitions regardless of how incomplete they maybe.

If you have no interest in discussing ethics and philosophy, you've come into the wrong thread motherfucker. This thread is ABOUT ethics, meta-ethics, and so on.

I wonder if that is against the rules or not...

[Sociobiology]

We shouldn't create artificial intelligence capable of being conscious in the first place.

any machine capable of complex variable/novel tasks will have to be conscious.
you can't have one without the other.

[Zimmer Twins]

Hmm thats a tough question...
I think the AI would have to have at least a 65% score on the turing test in order to be able to be considered a creature seperate from being a robot.

[Dark Luna]

We shouldn't create artificial intelligence capable of being conscious in the first place.

any machine capable of complex variable/novel tasks will have to be conscious.
you can't have one without the other.

Not necessarily.

[Aghny]

i don't have any interest in discussing ethics and philosophy.

Then perhaps, you should not be here? The question of whether or not an AI is entitled human rights is a philosophical/ethical/legal issue. Not a scientific one.

Too late. I already argued so much already. Then again, i can always goback to whether it should be created or not.

[Esternial]

I don't disagree. However, we have an idea of what AI is atm though and we haven't felt the need to change the definition yet.

This thread is working from a hypothetical situation, so obviously philosophy is essential.

Our current concept of AI is primitive and based on science fiction. There's nothing scientific about it in the first place. It's just like how science can't define magic, because we don't have something tangible enough for science to observe. The same goes for AI. We don't have any computer program in existence that can be classified as AI, so bringing science in it now is premature. Science doesn't really have a say in this yet.

[Conscentia]

Hmm thats a tough question...
I think the AI would have to have at least a 65% score on the turing test in order to be able to be considered a creature seperate from being a robot.

Thy expectations are a bit high. Actual humans don't even score above 65%.
http://www.cleverbot.com/human

[Sociobiology]

There is no biological perspective on what makes a "person" a person. None. Whatsoever. And there never will be, because biology is a science, and determining personhood is not.

Then i don't see how anyone can consider their opinions to be superior as none of this can be proven to be true or false objectively.

rights are not objective
nor is law or justice

[Aghny]

I don't disagree. However, we have an idea of what AI is atm though and we haven't felt the need to change the definition yet.

This thread is working from a hypothetical situation, so obviously philosophy is essential.

Our current concept of AI is primitive and based on science fiction. There's nothing scientific about it in the first place. It's just like how science can't define magic, because we don't have something tangible enough for science to observe. The same goes for AI. We don't have any computer program in existence that can be classified as AI, so bringing science in it now is premature. Science doesn't really have a say in this yet.

Hm... perhaps

[Aghny]

Then i don't see how anyone can consider their opinions to be superior as none of this can be proven to be true or false objectively.

rights are not objective
nor is law or justice

Neither did i say they were.

[Thronegaria]

Are you afraid of something like I, Robot?

[Sociobiology]

any machine capable of complex variable/novel tasks will have to be conscious.
you can't have one without the other.

Not necessarily.

everything we know about minds says it is once you can generalize, explore hypotheticals, self correct, and generate new assumptions, you are conscious.

that is what separates the human mind form a computer. The hardest part is the assumptions that have to be built in, humans have billions of generations of evolution to handle that, it will be trickier with computers.

the question is if we discovered a hidden village of Homo erectus would they have a right to life?

If we found a pack of elephants with cultural logically deduced laws, would they have a right to life?

If the answer to both is yes than not giving it to an AI would be hypocritical.

[Aghny]

Are you afraid of something like I, Robot?

Me ? If so, then i certainly think the possibility exists although it might be closer to skynet.

[Yankee Empire]

Sapience doesn't define personhood scientifically

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

True.