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?

@redredred

If i build a car i have every right to destroy it. If i build a person doesn't that then become murder?

@Pikachu it’s not (yet) legally defined as a person. If you had bacon with your breakfast the pig, a pretty intelligent animal, was killed to supply it. If you could create an AI as intelligent as a pig that would be quite an accomplishment but I don’t see how destroying it would be murder.

@redredred

I don't think there's any point in talking about legality here because there is no real life example of a true AI to use as reference.

If you create an AI that appears to think, express and emote like a human person to the point where you can no more prove it is acting on a program than you could prove a human is...is it still just a created object or something that is not a person?
At what point does it become murder or torture of this created being?

@Pikachu long-standing definitions of humanity might include having 46 chromosomes, being born of a woman, etc.

I can’t see how a bit of programming, irrespective of how sophisticated that requires hardware to exist can be construed as human. Koko the sign-language speaking gorilla was clearly sentient. Animal cruelty laws would have prevented torture but when she was too sick for treatment she was mercifully put down, a step illegal for humans.

An AI could in my view be destroyed by its creator without moral issues. Torture of an AI is an interesting idea. I’m not sure how it could be managed other than maybe constantly threatening it with extinction. It’s more an indication of poor character on the part of the torturer.

@redredred


Well sure. Humans are the only kind of people we've ever encountered.
But by that flimsy logic a sentient alien would not be considered a person.
So it comes down to what you consider to be the important qualities of personhood....so what are they? IS it being made of meat or being genetically human?


No, no, no. Not human. A person.
I think that's an important distinction and it's one we can get to when you tell me what you think the important qualities of personhood are.

@Pikachu Too many and too varied to list but Koko was clearly sentient and not human. I’m not sure if Koko was a person but sentient yes. I’d clearly call her an individual just as a sentient alien would be an individual. I’ve never met a human who was not a person so perhaps (only perhaps) there are no non-human persons.

@redredred


Give me your top three and explain why an AI could not possess them.


Perhaps. That's why it's important that we define a few qualities important to personhood.

@Pikachu 1)free will
2)The ability to maintain conflicting ideas
3)Self doubt.

@redredred

Ok, so why could an AI not possess those?
Consider the examples of AI that i posted in the OP as a frame of reference.

@Pikachu I think you’re talking in circles. I have no doubt that, if an AI could be created to rival a pigs sentience it could surely be possible to equal or exceed a humans. There is more to humanity than sentience. That’s why Downs Syndrome people, Alzheimer’s sufferers and the severely brain damaged are considered fully human.

@redredred

You keep using that word "human" as if it's synonymous with personhood but since you didn't mention "genetically human" as one of your top 3 qualities of persnhood then i'll assume it's just a term used out of habit.


Assuming that we're talking about there being more to personhood than mere sentience...what is that and why could an AI not possess it?

@Pikachu it’s humans you can ethically destroy on a whim. Any patch of software, no matter how inventive or human-like it is, is simply an artifact. The ethics are no more complicated than deciding to shatter a clay pot.

@redredred


...Why?
You're begging the question. You're assuming your conclusion in your premise: An AI cannot be a person because no matter what qualities it possess an AI would not be a person.
That's a logical fallacy.

You're throwing out qualities ( or additional, unidentified qualities) which make a person a person but you have yet to clear the hurdle of explaining why an AI could not possess those qualities.

Or, if you think those qualities might be attainable by an AI, on what basis do you disqualify such an AI from personhood?

@Pikachu is a brilliant reproduction an original? Is a great photocopy of the Mona Lisa something people would line up to see at the Louvre? Would destroying such a photocopy be the loss of something priceless?

Mimicking human sentience with a bit of software is impressive but sentience is only one element of humanity as I’ve indicated several times so far. We understand this when humans have lost sentience we still value those unfortunates.

I don’t know how to be clearer. A reproducible man-made artifact can ethically be destroyed by its author. DaVinci could have ethically destroyed the Mona Lisa. If you want to argue that point, go ahead.

@redredred


A bit of a flawed analogy, yes? It's not about producing a copy but an entity unique in the same way that any entity born of fucking is unique.
If you buy a counterfeit louis vuitton handbag it's not a louis vuitton...but it's still a handbag.
If you produce an artificial human person, it's not a human...but why shouldn't it be a person?


Sure, but importantly what you have failed several times so far is to make a case for why the qualities you consider important for personhood can not be possessed by an AI.
You have repeatedly asserted that this is so but you have yet to actually make an argument in that area.

Can you do so now?

@Pikachu No. you win. Do as you will. It means nothing to me. I’m now doing something more meaningful than talking to you. I’m teaching algebra to a horse.

@redredred
Oh...we're being shitty now...that's too bad.
Sorry, I was enjoying our discussion. Didn't realize you were getting upset over it.

@Pikachu I can only pound the nail so many times. You’re obviously convinced of your initial position and nothing I say makes any difference. What you want is an echo chamber not a sounding board.

@redredred

Well i don't think that's very fair. But maybe i'm not paying attention so before you go teach a horse algebra, answer me this:

Do you feel that you have given an explanation, not a statement but an explanation for why an AI may not possess the qualities you think are important to personhood or, if they do, why they could still not be considered a person?