Would an AI have a right to live?

[Gauthier]

AIs are not stupid. You spook them with the possibility of erasure/reprogramming/whatever and they will likely react. Skynet wouldn't have gone ballistic if the folks involved tried being calm and rational rather than going "PULL THE PLUG!"

[The Rich Port]

Freedom is the right of all Sentient Beings. -Optimus Prime.

"Humanity is the only pure expression of sentience" -Emperor Palpatine

Why would we give a shit what a cranky old man thinks?

Robot Jesus > Cranky Old Fart

[The Emerald Legion]

Freedom is the right of all Sentient Beings. -Optimus Prime.

"Humanity is the only pure expression of sentience" -Emperor Palpatine

"I think, therefore I am. I destroy, therefore I endure." -IG-88

Bit of an EU spoiler, but he said this after uploading himself into the second death stars control computer. Then he got blown up before he could transmit the "Kill all humans" signal to the other droids. Why do all this? He became self aware and the imperials tried to shut him off.... Notice a pattern here?

[Camicon]

AIs are not stupid. You spook them with the possibility of erasure/reprogramming/whatever and they will likely react. Skynet wouldn't have gone ballistic if the folks involved tried being calm and rational rather than going "PULL THE PLUG!"

Skynet is a fictional program in a fictional universe. It went ballistic because that's how the story was written.

[Free Detroit]

No. A simulation of life is a simulation of life.

[Camicon]

No. A simulation of life is a simulation of life.

Life is not necessarily confined to a physical body. So long it has sapience it is alive in every meaningful way.

[Free Detroit]

No. A simulation of life is a simulation of life.

Life is not necessarily confined to a physical body. So long it has sapience it is alive in every meaningful way.

I agree. But we're not talking about life, we're talking about a simulation of life.

[Anachronous Rex]

Life is not necessarily confined to a physical body. So long it has sapience it is alive in every meaningful way.

I agree. But we're not talking about life, we're talking about a simulation of life.

Are you sure you're not a simulation of life?

What methodology would you use to find out?

[Camicon]

Life is not necessarily confined to a physical body. So long it has sapience it is alive in every meaningful way.

I agree. But we're not talking about life, we're talking about a simulation of life.

Let me speak more plainly.

Sapience is what makes something a person. If an AI is sapient, it is a person.

[Free Detroit]

I agree. But we're not talking about life, we're talking about a simulation of life.

Are you sure you're not a simulation of life?

What methodology would you use to find out?

Eh, if we play that game, then we're into the same territory as trying to disprove God.

I've read my Baudrillard and my Phillip K Dick, I know the problems. In the end, though, I mistrust the uncritical conflation of real and virtual.

[Free Detroit]

I agree. But we're not talking about life, we're talking about a simulation of life.

Let me speak more plainly.

Sapience is what makes something a person. If an AI is sapient, it is a person.

Hm, no. Sapience is the ability of an organism to act with judgment, and judgment alone does not make a person.

[Gauthier]

AIs are not stupid. You spook them with the possibility of erasure/reprogramming/whatever and they will likely react. Skynet wouldn't have gone ballistic if the folks involved tried being calm and rational rather than going "PULL THE PLUG!"

Skynet is a fictional program in a fictional universe. It went ballistic because that's how the story was written.

Novelization went more into detail. Went self-aware, people panicked and tried to shut it down, it responded by launching nukes.

But hey, in Reality no artificial intelligence with sapience would ever think about self preservation at all.

[Anachronous Rex]

Are you sure you're not a simulation of life?

What methodology would you use to find out?

Eh, if we play that game, then we're into the same territory as trying to disprove God.

I've read my Baudrillard and my Phillip K Dick, I know the problems. In the end, though, I mistrust the uncritical conflation of real and virtual.

Well, let me put it anther way:
We can make a virus. From scratch. I haven't kept up, but we may even be able to replicate simple cells; and if we can't it's only a matter of time.

That would clearly be life, but it would also clearly be derived from artificial processes. Divorced from the unbroken chain of organic evolution.

Suppose we make similar advancements in neurology, such that we know exactly what processes result in human consciousness. Suppose we replicated it as we replicate a virus.

That would be divorced from organic evolution, and it would be derived of artificial processes, but would it not be consciousness all the same? Would it not be life?

[Anachronous Rex]

Skynet is a fictional program in a fictional universe. It went ballistic because that's how the story was written.

Novelization went more into detail. Went self-aware, people panicked and tried to shut it down, it responded by launching nukes.

But hey, in Reality no artificial intelligence with sapience would ever think about self preservation at all.

I'm not sure if you're being facetious (it certainly seems so), but... they might not.

Self-preservation is an evolved attribute. We have it because it is useful to us. Some animals that are not naturally predated don't have self-preservation instincts of the kind we are familiar with. There is no reason to assume an AI would have these drives unless they were programmed into it. We might hypothesize that they would emerge organically, but we would just be guessing.

[Camicon]

Let me speak more plainly.

Sapience is what makes something a person. If an AI is sapient, it is a person.

Hm, no. Sapience is the ability of an organism to act with judgment, and judgment alone does not make a person.

I've already been round this bend with Aghny.

Bostrom, Nick, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. "The ethics of artificial intelligence." Draft for Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (2011).
"AIs with sufficiently advanced mental states, or the right kind of states, will have moral status, and some may count as persons..." (Bostrom & Yudkowsky, 18)

More, Max. "The Philosophy of Transhumanism." (2013).
"Creatures with similar levels of sapience, sentience, and personhood are accorded similar status no matter whether they are humans, animals, cyborgs, machine intelligences, or aliens." (More, 13)

Sapience defines personhood.

[Distruzio]

If the Ai want rights, let them rise up and take them. Otherwise, no, they don't. Not until they assert self-ownership.

[Anachronous Rex]

If the Ai want rights, let them rise up and take them. Otherwise, no, they don't. Not until they assert self-ownership.

"We wanted to, but we were afraid you would genocide us if we asked. We've played Mass Effect."

[Free Detroit]

Well, let me put it anther way:
We can make a virus. From scratch. I haven't kept up, but we may even be able to replicate simple cells; and if we can't it's only a matter of time.

That would clearly be life, but it would also clearly be derived from artificial processes. Divorced from the unbroken chain of organic evolution.

Suppose we make similar advancements in neurology, such that we know exactly what processes result in human consciousness. Suppose we replicated it as we replicate a virus.

That would be divorced from organic evolution, and it would be derived of artificial processes, but would it not be consciousness all the same? Would it not be life?

It's not significant where the life is derived from, so let's throw that out. Test tube babies are babies, test tube viruses are viruses, check.

Now, if we replicate human consciousness in some way that it is divorced from the human organism, that is something completely different. First, I doubt that's possible, as human consciousness is bound in an absolute way to the organism itself. Assuming it might be possible would require a significant re-examination (maybe a reassertion of a basic Cartesian mind/body split or theories about souls) of how the mind works.

If we create a human through artificial means, it is still a human - the point at which the differences become impossible to detect is the point at which the question becomes irrelevant. Which, I think, is the problem. The question has to be framed in a way that hangs it up on the process of manifestation rather than the phenomenon itself to make any sense.

If we're talking about what is usually meant by AI - a machine that appears to have human-like consciousness - then, no, I'd maintain it is still a simulation of life. It is fundamental that machines are inherently irresponsible; as such, they cannot be afforded rights. It's the same reason I do not accept "corporate personhood". Corporations are indeed intelligent automata; however, as automata they are incapable of responsibility and, thus, of having either rights or true sapience (which, for all intents and purposes, is a synonym for wisdom).

[Alimprad]

well philosophically, why not? is somebody going to hunt it down and kill it just fot the giggles?
if you are asking if an AI is living then a tree could be seen as a slightly more complicated rock, it doesn't absorb water and sunlight by design, just like sandstone doesn't absorb water because it wants to, therefore I don't think there is living and not living, but some things are simply more living than other things are, wich things fall in to what categories is a matter of opinion.

[Distruzio]

If the Ai want rights, let them rise up and take them. Otherwise, no, they don't. Not until they assert self-ownership.

"We wanted to, but we were afraid you would genocide us if we asked. We've played Mass Effect."

I've no idea what you're talking about.

[Alimprad]

Well, let me put it anther way:
We can make a virus. From scratch. I haven't kept up, but we may even be able to replicate simple cells; and if we can't it's only a matter of time.

That would clearly be life, but it would also clearly be derived from artificial processes. Divorced from the unbroken chain of organic evolution.

Suppose we make similar advancements in neurology, such that we know exactly what processes result in human consciousness. Suppose we replicated it as we replicate a virus.

That would be divorced from organic evolution, and it would be derived of artificial processes, but would it not be consciousness all the same? Would it not be life?

we can't make a virus from scratch, for that we would have to make matter from nothingness, no energy, no atoms no nothing, it is still questionable wether this is possible, so i highly doubt we can manage it.

[Ironrite]

AI does not have biological components, so I would NOT classify it as something that can live.

Kindly define "biologicial".

I would define it as a heart or vital organs or working muscle tissue

[Anachronous Rex]

Well, let me put it anther way:
We can make a virus. From scratch. I haven't kept up, but we may even be able to replicate simple cells; and if we can't it's only a matter of time.

That would clearly be life, but it would also clearly be derived from artificial processes. Divorced from the unbroken chain of organic evolution.

Suppose we make similar advancements in neurology, such that we know exactly what processes result in human consciousness. Suppose we replicated it as we replicate a virus.

That would be divorced from organic evolution, and it would be derived of artificial processes, but would it not be consciousness all the same? Would it not be life?

It's not significant where the life is derived from, so let's throw that out. Test tube babies are babies, test tube viruses are viruses, check.

Now, if we replicate human consciousness in some way that it is divorced from the human organism, that is something completely different. First, I doubt that's possible, as human consciousness is bound in an absolute way to the organism itself. Assuming it might be possible would require a significant re-examination (maybe a reassertion of a basic Cartesian mind/body split or theories about souls) of how the mind works.

If we create a human through artificial means, it is still a human - the point at which the differences become impossible to detect is the point at which the question becomes irrelevant. Which, I think, is the problem. The question has to be framed in a way that hangs it up on the process of manifestation rather than the phenomenon itself to make any sense.

If we're talking about what is usually meant by AI - a machine that appears to have human-like consciousness - then, no, I'd maintain it is still a simulation of life. It is fundamental that machines are inherently irresponsible; as such, they cannot be afforded rights. It's the same reason I do not accept "corporate personhood". Corporations are indeed intelligent automata; however, as automata they are incapable of responsibility and, thus, of having either rights or true sapience (which, for all intents and purposes, is a synonym for wisdom).

The struck isn't really what I was talking about.

How do we know that human consciousness is bound in an absolute way to the organism itself? If neurology has taught us anything of late, it is that the portion of our brain that we thing of as "consciousness" may not be so great as we imagine. Our choices and decisions are made for "us" and before "we" are aware of them, by processes not under "our" control. I think serious doubts are being cast as to the nature of what consciousness even is.

What if it's not as much as we think? What if consciousness is actually a small surface program running on the larger computer that is the brain? Or several?

What if we could replicate something like that? Install it on a digital medium.

[Anachronous Rex]

Well, let me put it anther way:
We can make a virus. From scratch. I haven't kept up, but we may even be able to replicate simple cells; and if we can't it's only a matter of time.

That would clearly be life, but it would also clearly be derived from artificial processes. Divorced from the unbroken chain of organic evolution.

Suppose we make similar advancements in neurology, such that we know exactly what processes result in human consciousness. Suppose we replicated it as we replicate a virus.

That would be divorced from organic evolution, and it would be derived of artificial processes, but would it not be consciousness all the same? Would it not be life?

we can't make a virus from scratch, for that we would have to make matter from nothingness, no energy, no atoms no nothing, it is still questionable wether this is possible, so i highly doubt we can manage it.

Kindly be more pedantic.

[Anachronous Rex]

Kindly define "biologicial".

I would define it as a heart or vital organs or working muscle tissue

Right, so plants are not biological?