If you create a true artificial intelligence, are you morally justified in doing whatever you want to that creation? Can you hurt them if you want? [Spirituality & Religion]
Imagine a hypothetical AI being of the kind we see in science fiction; truly real persons that are artificially created. Is it a moral action for you to cause that being to suffer if they do not meet your standards? Are you morally right to do that? They are utterly your creation, they do not exist without your act of creation. Does that mean you can torture them or abuse them or subjugate them and still be morally justified?
That is the argument that theists use for god. Is it still a satisfying argument when we remove the conceits we allow for god?
Well, it is true that our creation belongs to us, and we have the rights to control it. It is somewhat the same as children and parents. But if this hypothesis compares to God and His creation (humans), then I don't think it is suitable to compare.
So, let's start with artificial intelligence, the creation that we made. When we create something, it belongs to us, it follows us, it lives with us, and we are the one to control it. But there is a different, artificial intelligence is artificial and unnatural. Its unnatural intelligence can define the perception of things surround it like us, and even can express emotion like us. The only thing that it can never be like us that it does not have the quality of a human. Its emotion, personality was created by our intelligence, not by the environment or society. Our personality and emotion were created by the impact of society and the environment around us, and form us into ourselves at the present. But artificial intelligence was not created that way. It can perceive the good and bad, right and wrong, but it will never be us. It does not have a soul or energy of connection within it. It does not have the value of a human being. Our connection toward it is separate and detach. And we have the rights to destroy and rebuild it.
We, humans, are the creation of God. In Christianity, God created us under his form, and give us life. We are His children, and He loves us more than we can imagine. He brings us life, but we will be the one to form ourselves through the life that He gave. This relates to parents and children; our parents bring us to life, and from that, we will decide the quality of ourselves based on the process that we live in life. We have the connection within them and we have the energy to connect to our creator. We were created from a part of them, and that part belongs to us. God created us under his form and some of his quality, that means there is a part of Him inside us. Our parent created us from a part of them, that means there is a part of them inside us. If our creator tortures us and takes advantage of us because we are their creation, then it is wrong for them to that because they are destroying the part of themselves inside us. They torture us, which means they torture them because we both have an inner connection with each other. And that is wrong for the moral of living. Do not ever destroy something that comes from a part of ourselves. We are their creation, and they are our creator; but after all, we all are a part of each other, and we are them, and they are us.
[quote]We created it, which means that we give it the emotion and personality already...Where do Al's emotion and personality come from? Well, the answer is us. [/quote]
Why? Why do you assume that this is what is meant by artificial intelligence? Speaking or recent sci-fi examples, Chappie is an AI who's emotional maturity, understanding and personality are learned rather than programmed. I already addressed this. Why should we assume that the personality and emotions of an AI are fully formed and crystallized at the moment of its conception? Why could an AI not learn, develop and grow in these ways in the same way that humans do?
[quote]A soul is not about existing under a form of material. It is a form of spiritual. And speaking of spiritual, this cannot exist under artificial thing. This should belong to the natural thing.[/quote]
This is a contradictory statement. You declare (and i agree) that a soul is not dependent upon the form of the person. But then you go on to assert that the form IS the determining factor. That a soul cannot exist in an artificial form. Why? What is your reasoning for this assertion? Why is a natural form made of meat conducive to a soul but an artificial form not?
[quote]Why would God have to give an artificial intelligence a soul when it was not even created by Him?[/quote]
We're not talking about what a god would [i]have[/i] to do. We are discussing what the requirements for a soul are. If you like, why would god [i]have[/i] to refuse to give a soul to a person on the basis that he had not created that person?
[quote]How do I know about this is that I based on what I observe through my own experience. [/quote]
Well that's not true. Unless i am misunderstanding your meaning, you have to admit that you have no experience of an AI person and therefor no context to assume that they would not have the same kind of spiritual experience that you might.
[quote]If I may ask, what do you mean by "As for such persons not having the value of a human....well that's just racist"?[/quote]
Racist, xenophobic. Call it what you like. At the end of the day, it's a prejudice judgement of the other. A determination that the other is less than you, less than human, not a person the way you are a person. When we're speaking of AI that grow and learn and feel if not in the same way as you and i, then at least in comparable ways, i feel that we are speaking of a person. The idea that, that person has less intrinsic value because they're not human or not made of meat or not pushed out of a birth canal strikes me as prejudice.
SW-User
For the part of [b]How do I know about this is that I based on what I observe through my own experience[/b]. And you say that is not true, and yes, you are misunderstanding my point. My meaning here is that I know "it" from my own experience, my own. The answer "it" is for the meaning of the soul, not for artificial intelligence Al. And why would I have to admit that I have no experience of an Al person when in fact, I didn't mention any experience that relates to Al? I don't care about Al, all I care is science fiction thing is never ever real like us. That is why it is called science fiction.
And for your answer of "We're not talking about what a god would have to do. We are discussing what the requirements for a soul are", the question "Why would God have to give an artificial intelligence a soul when it was not even created by Him?" is my answer for your previous question "why couldn't a god give such a being a soul as well". Well, I'm pretty sure you are misunderstanding the connection between my answer and your question.
I have to admit that I completely disagree with you about your statement of racist. Racist is a word used for racial discrimination. It is about the injustice treatment between races, and it can only use for the purpose of the problem that relates to races. And you have to remember that racist is a word used for only one meaning, not for much other meaning. The way you use its meaning for my opposite view about Al is a terrible mistake. A robot is a machine that forms under the metal, iron, and electricity, etc. From what I believe, Al is not a person. It doesn't have a DNA or blood of race or real skin color. It is just a machine that has an intelligent mind like us, that is what makes it different from us. You can use the other word that appropriate to describe the discrimination between humans and robots but don't ever use the word "racist" for that problem because it sounds obviously wrong.
I will not continue talking about this because I knew the more I express my answer, the more you will against it. And there will be a non-stop argument happen. Here is the problem, your post is asking me about artificial intelligence and my job is I give you my own answer based on my own perspective. That is the main point of all of this. But then you keep giving me the question and your statement in order to dive deep into my point and find my final answer of an agreement to your perspective. But you should know this, whether you like/agree or dislike/disagree with my answer, you still have to accept that you and I, our mind are different, and the more we try to change the other, the harder they accept to change. So if you keep giving me your hypothesis and question, my answer would still be the same.
[quote]I will not continue talking about this because I knew the more I express my answer, the more you will against it[/quote]
Yes, Anna. That's what we do in a debate. We're just exploring the ideas and the reasoning behind them. Like when you say an AI couldn't be formed by its experience or couldn't have a soul, i ask you to explore the reasoning behind such assertions. But if that doesn't float your boat then you're right to leave.
[quote]I completely disagree with you about your statement of racist[/quote]
Well i did clarify that statement and also offered the label xenophobic which i agree is more appropriate than racist but i think you could easily describe a group of AI as a different race. The point being it is still prejudice against the other on the basis that they are not the same as you and that they are therefor less than you.
[quote] Al is not a person. It doesn't have a DNA or blood of race or real skin color[/quote]
I'd love to discuss personhood with you. I don't think any of the things you just mentioned there are the least bit indicative of what makes a person a person.
Hit me up if you change your mind🙂
SW-User
Depends, is it morally justified to beat the shit out of your children because you created them?
Morals are morals. It doesn't matter what's in involved. 😂
@Pikachu If God is real. But even if he was, look at all the bad shit we do? I don't see him chucking lightning bolts and smiting people, or causing plagues and floods. So I'd assume it's safe to say that the answer is pretty much what you see the AI as. Do you see it as a person? A living thing? An object? Or a tool?
Personally even though it wouldn't need to eat, sleep, or breathe I'd classify it as alive due to the fact it would most likely have a mind of its own. So I'd treat an AI like I would any other person/animal.
I'm not justifying sin. I [i]have[/i] pointed out that a rule set out by a creator is not inherently moral and you have made not rebuttal to that assertion.
Why are you refusing answer my question? Please show me the respect of directly addressing it. Please don't continue to ignore me.
Are you morally right to make a person suffer on the basis that you have created them?
