Would an AI have a right to live?

[Sociobiology]

rights are not objective
nor is law or justice

Neither did i say they were.

but nor are they pure opinion, they are consensus.

[Yankee Empire]

Neither did i say they were.

but nor are they pure opinion, they are consensus.

Consensus of Opinion, that said I think philosophically some opinions can be show to be more valid than others.

[Crumlark]

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.

From when I was little, I did not know what sadness was. I noticed negative energy, and did not understand it. Eventually, my parents took me aside, and explained it to me. Did that make me less human, that I had to be 'programmed' to feel sadness? Does that make every time I feel sadness fake? And the argument that emotions equals sapience is erroneous. Emotion is a key part of humanity, but not self awareness.

[Aghny]

Neither did i say they were.

but nor are they pure opinion, they are consensus.

Nope. Considering most are created and passed by a select few.

[Sociobiology]

but nor are they pure opinion, they are consensus.

Consensus of Opinion, that said I think philosophically some opinions can be show to be more valid than others.

sure but don't confuse valid with sound. Philosophy cannot determine if an opinion is sound.

[Sociobiology]

but nor are they pure opinion, they are consensus.

Nope. Considering most are created and passed by a select few.

so you don't know what consensus means?

[Aghny]

Nope. Considering most are created and passed by a select few.

so you don't know what consensus means?

Sure if you mean the consensus of a handful of individuals while there are more than 6 billion people on earth, then i get exactly what you mean.

[Trotskylvania]

Consensus of Opinion, that said I think philosophically some opinions can be show to be more valid than others.

sure but don't confuse valid with sound. Philosophy cannot determine if an opinion is sound.

Only if you think that the various methods of empirical inquiry are distinct from philosophy.

[Akitawnui]

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

And there the danger lies.

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

Thank you for that.

[Trotskylvania]

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

Not necessarily.

No, that's pretty much the definition of consciousness as far as we can tell.

[Aghny]

Not necessarily.

No, that's pretty much the definition of consciousness as far as we can tell.

We don't really understand consciousness fully though.

[Trotskylvania]

No, that's pretty much the definition of consciousness as far as we can tell.

We don't really understand consciousness fully though.

We don't have to in order to make this determination as far as the actual facts of complex computational/decision making systems go.

[Aghny]

We don't really understand consciousness fully though.

We don't have to in order to make this determination as far as the actual facts of complex computational/decision making systems go.

I'd disagree. If you don't understand something, then you could be just as wrong as right.

[Akitawnui]

We don't really understand consciousness fully though.

We don't have to in order to make this determination as far as the actual facts of complex computational/decision making systems go.

Complex decision making can be strictly deductive, or programmed as such. Theres no parallels with complex abstract thinking..

[Trotskylvania]

We don't have to in order to make this determination as far as the actual facts of complex computational/decision making systems go.

I'd disagree. If you don't understand something, then you could be just as wrong as right.

No, there are many degrees of wrong, just as there are many degrees of understanding.

And from what we do understand about consciousness means that it will be highly improbable that any future change in our understanding will mean that we'll be able to have conscious entities that are not capable of complex, variable and novel tasks, and vice versa. Just like even though gravitation is poorly understood, there is really never going to be a scientific discovery that would lead us to conclude that massive bodies don't attract.

[Aghny]

I'd disagree. If you don't understand something, then you could be just as wrong as right.

No, there are many degrees of wrong, just as there are many degrees of understanding.

And from what we do understand about consciousness means that it will be highly improbable that any future change in our understanding will mean that we'll be able to have conscious entities that are not capable of complex, variable and novel tasks, and vice versa. Just like even though gravitation is poorly understood, there is really never going to be a scientific discovery that would lead us to conclude that massive bodies don't attract.

I was going more along the lines of like, those factors alone might not entirely and accurately define consciousness.

[Phocidaea]

I hope not.

I'd pull the plug on the thing the millisecond it decided to do something stupid. Don't want any GLaDOSes or HAL 9000s.

[Sociobiology]

sure but don't confuse valid with sound. Philosophy cannot determine if an opinion is sound.

Only if you think that the various methods of empirical inquiry are distinct from philosophy.

they are generally defined as such, being neither inductive nor deductive.

[Sociobiology]

We don't have to in order to make this determination as far as the actual facts of complex computational/decision making systems go.

I'd disagree. If you don't understand something, then you could be just as wrong as right.

so the earth continuing to orbit the sun tomorrow is exactly as likely as it stopping tomorrow, because we don't fully understand gravity?

[Sociobiology]

We don't have to in order to make this determination as far as the actual facts of complex computational/decision making systems go.

Complex decision making can be strictly deductive, or programmed as such.

but novel reasoning cannot, and highly variable reasoning cannot be at a functional level, because said machine will run out of time in the universe before it runs out of possibilities.

[Akitawnui]

Complex decision making can be strictly deductive, or programmed as such.

but novel reasoning cannot, and highly variable reasoning cannot be at a functional level, because said machine will run out of time in the universe before it runs out of possibilities.

I agree but that machine can refer to the human brain as well

[Salandriagado]

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.

You really have no idea what "AI" means, do you?

[Salandriagado]

[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

"Person" is not a scientific concept. It is a legal term.

2) AI are not persons unless ofcourse proved scientifically
3) AI are not people unless ofcourse proved scientifically

AIs, by definition, are persons.

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.

You are, in fact, exactly wrong. Scientific claims cannot by proven. Some philosophical ones (those of the more formal side of philosophy) can be proven.

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.

Kindly prove that you are alive, and not just mimicking something that is alive.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

That is explicitly not what I am suggesting. Learn to read.

That is basically what you wrote. Learn to writer better then.

If you could say one intelligent thing about quantum mechanics, I would be impressed.

I did. Not my fault that you can't comprehend something that you have no knowledge of.

Aghny, are you going around pretending to be a professor again? tsk* tsk* tsk* Am I going to have to put you in your place again?

[Esternial]

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.

From when I was little, I did not know what sadness was. I noticed negative energy, and did not understand it. Eventually, my parents took me aside, and explained it to me. Did that make me less human, that I had to be 'programmed' to feel sadness? Does that make every time I feel sadness fake? And the argument that emotions equals sapience is erroneous. Emotion is a key part of humanity, but not self awareness.

It probably doesn't need emotions to be considered 'alive' in the first place. Why some want an AI to exhibit humanity per se is beyond me.