If AI was created, should it have equal rights to humans?

[kvnchrist]

Honestly K...I think your question was more argumentative than debate stirring...and could lead down the religion road where there is a bunny with great, big teeth.

 

I don't believe in artificial creation of life

[stars2heaven]

So based on assumptions that any type of AI would be maligned towards humans they should by default be oppressed.

 

 

We have not created AI. All of this is assumed, except for my statement, which is has been proven, over and over. I ask it again.

 

 

no object created is equal to it's creator. When has this ever not been true.

Parent >Child? :unsure:

 

I'm talking about creating with the hands, not with something else. I assume you don't think that AI can be created by procreation?

 

The term procreation does not just refer to biological reproduction. It's meaning could be that specific, but it could also be as vague as simply the process by which an organism produces others of its kind. A machine building another like it may not fit into the former definition, but it does the latter.

[Ghogiel]

Honestly K...I think your question was more argumentative than debate stirring...and could lead down the religion road where there is a bunny with great, big teeth.

 

I don't believe in artificial creation of life

So synthetic biology is a vicious rumour ? :tongue:

 

Biological organisms have been artificially created. If you give your definition of life it might help alleviate some misunderstandings.

[kvnchrist]

Also my statement is correct that no object created is equal to it's creator. When has this ever not been true.

 

Well the hypothetical we are dealing with has to do a machine that is atleast equal to us in terms of its mental capabilities. This may be impossible in reality, but for the purposes of this discussion we are assuming it to be true.

 

So, are you saying that despite it's mental capabilities being atleast equal to our own that it is still somehow unequal to us in some way? Please explain.

 

 

Because it is not us. It would be a constructed by us.

In many ways it would be superior to us. Mostly because many of the things that make us human would be foreign to these supposed creatures. Not just foreign, but completely immaterial to them.

[kvnchrist]

Honestly K...I think your question was more argumentative than debate stirring...and could lead down the religion road where there is a bunny with great, big teeth.

 

I don't believe in artificial creation of life

So synthetic biology is a vicious rumour ? :tongue:

 

Biological organisms have been artificially created. If you give your definition of life it might help alleviate some misunderstandings.

 

 

There is no misunderstanding. I don't think life can be artificially created. Period! You can try making fun of this all you wish I believe what I believe.

[Ghogiel]

Honestly K...I think your question was more argumentative than debate stirring...and could lead down the religion road where there is a bunny with great, big teeth.

 

I don't believe in artificial creation of life

So synthetic biology is a vicious rumour ? :tongue:

 

Biological organisms have been artificially created. If you give your definition of life it might help alleviate some misunderstandings.

 

 

There is no misunderstanding. I don't think life can be artificially created. Period! You can try making fun of this all you wish I believe what I believe.

well there is a misunderstanding somewhere In the definition of life being used.

"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death"

 

I am simply asking what is yours.

[stars2heaven]

So, are you saying that despite it's mental capabilities being atleast equal to our own that it is still somehow unequal to us in some way? Please explain.

 

 

Because it is not us. It would be a constructed by us.

In many ways it would be superior to us. Mostly because many of the things that make us human would be foreign to these supposed creatures. Not just foreign, but completely immaterial to them.

 

I think it should be painfully evident that a thing which is not human is not equal to a human in terms of the parts which compose it. So I hope that we are on the same page when discussing equality in terms of how one ought to be treated when compared to another thing and not just playing a game of semantics. If what you mean is the former, then there is no debate to be had between us and you can disregard the following.

 

So, how is it that something is not equal to us simply because it is made by us? My question from earlier is returning:

 

Usually when we consider whether something deserves certain rights equality we consider personhood and whether that being has things like intelligence, self awareness, consciousness or other mental attributes. What we do not consider is whether the being evolved from some other life form, is biological in nature, had parents, etc. The focus is not on where it came from, but what it can do. So why is it so important to you to point out the difference in how an A.I. comes into existence from how humans came into existence? So long as the end result is the same, why does it matter?

Edited October 3, 2011 by stars2heaven

[kvnchrist]

Honestly K...I think your question was more argumentative than debate stirring...and could lead down the religion road where there is a bunny with great, big teeth.

 

I don't believe in artificial creation of life

So synthetic biology is a vicious rumour ? :tongue:

 

Biological organisms have been artificially created. If you give your definition of life it might help alleviate some misunderstandings.

 

 

 

 

There is no misunderstanding. I don't think life can be artificially created. Period! You can try making fun of this all you wish I believe what I believe.

well there is a misunderstanding somewhere In the definition of life being used.

"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death"

 

I am simply asking what is yours.

 

Anything created artificially is not life. There is no artificial life. There is only one source of life and I really don't think we need to go any further, with this.

 

As I've said, I have my beliefs, they are personal and not open for debate. Not here anyway.

[Ghogiel]

Honestly K...I think your question was more argumentative than debate stirring...and could lead down the religion road where there is a bunny with great, big teeth.

 

I don't believe in artificial creation of life

So synthetic biology is a vicious rumour ? :tongue:

 

Biological organisms have been artificially created. If you give your definition of life it might help alleviate some misunderstandings.

 

 

 

 

There is no misunderstanding. I don't think life can be artificially created. Period! You can try making fun of this all you wish I believe what I believe.

well there is a misunderstanding somewhere In the definition of life being used.

"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death"

 

I am simply asking what is yours.

 

Anything created artificially is not life. There is no artificial life. There is only one source of life and I really don't think we need to go any further, with this.

 

As I've said, I have my beliefs, they are personal and not open for debate. Not here anyway.

You have stated what it isn't, not what it is.

 

But ok I see you've got something going on in that verboten subject going on. For the sake of argument/topic, can we stick to life as per the dictionary definition, I assume it is perfectly adequate and most widely accepted.

[kvnchrist]

 

 

 

 

I think it should be painfully evident that a thing which is not human is not equal to a human in terms of the parts which compose it. So I hope that we are on the same page when discussing equality in terms of how one ought to be treated when compared to another thing and not just playing a game of semantics. If what you mean is the former, then there is no debate to be had between us and you can disregard the following.

 

As far as treatment of any sentient being, I think any entity needs to be treated ethically and appropriately. Animals domestic or not. Spiders, snakes and the like.

These AI entities deserve to be treated according to their capabilities. As far as equal rights, That is something sacred to me. Not religiously so, but socially. When I think of equal rights, I think of inequality between the races, not between a machine and a man.