It is said by the faithful that God has the right to do whatever he pleases to humans because he created them. I disagree. Let's explore that idea:
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?
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 having the right to inflict suffering on humanity. Is it still a satisfying argument when we remove the conceits we allow for god?
We all fall short of the glory of God We all sin God is holy Any punishment given by God is just And we have to remember that though He is the higest of powers, there is also Satan at play
If you created an AI of the sort we are discussing here, would you have the moral right to destroy or harm them if they failed to live up to your expectations? If so, why so?
@Matt85 no. God might be holy and have created the universe but we are given lives and rights and are not simply puppets to be puppeteered or punished without just cause and the punishment must fit the crime that is justice. And if God is just then life would be fair but since it is not we should be allowed to level the playing field
This was a recurring theme in the TV series Black Mirror. Several episodes involved the transfer of someone's intelligence into digital form, and torturing them. In one, a man is kept forever in the state of agony he was in at the moment of his execution, with copies sold as keychain ornaments.
In one Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, someone wants to take Data apart to figure out how he works. There is a lengthy discussion over whether he is a "person" for whom doing this would be unacceptable, or just a machine that can be destroyed to satisfy someone's curiosity.
Nobody would say that the Mona Lisa painting is a "person," but demolishing it to better understand Leonardo's painting technique would be problematic for most people.
No we definitely don't have any rights to our own body. We all belong to God but he chose to give us a free will in hopes that we'll follow him and live for him.
So what would be your answer the scenario proposed in this question? Would you be justified in doing as you please to a person you created on the basis that they belong to you? If so, why so? If not, why not?
Okay I see where you are coming from so you were talking about AI. So you want me to use my mind and think about it as if I could create a real person.
Oh my goodness this is far streach for me because I'm not a scientist but if you create something though AI you could never use it to hurt others that number 1. You could never use it to do anything immoral, or wrong, or evil.
But if you put it together I don't see anything wrong with taking it apart again. I couldn't see it any different than taking Alexa apart. I was almost afraid to say her name because I hate to use it because of what it says when I do.
So I guess this is just about as far as I can go on this subject unless you could give me something else to go on.
But if you put it together I don't see anything wrong with taking it apart again. I couldn't see it any different than taking Alexa apart.
Alexa is not a person. Alexa is a program. Look at the examples i gave in the picture in the OP of artificial persons from film and tv. I use those as examples of the sort of AI we're discussing: Beings in their own right that have feelings, ambitions, fears, loves. The human experience.
If you were to create a being like that, would you honestly see it as nothing more than an object you could take apart?
God is not man to have very little wisdom. God is God and we're not.
For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Jeremiah 29:11 The Word of God and not man.
Walk with the wise and become wise, for a companion of fools suffers harm. Proverbs 13:20 The Word of God and not man.
Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Romans 13:10 The Word of God and not man.
AI is not a being having consciousness as humans do. AI can understand emotions but can't feel/live the emotions. Lining beings and AI are incomparable.
What the question is talking about is tech we probably would not see for a very long time.
I don't believe that anything makes a grey matter brain special to the point that no other life form with equal intelligence could exist from circuitry.
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I didn't defined AI or ML specifically. I have gives sources of those statements about AI. But even they don't specifically define AI. I guess you are assuming things in your mind.
Intelligence and consciousness are two different things. Don't mix them.
I don't think the AI analogy is a good one. I think it would be more apt to say what if you are the parent of a child could you do whatever you wanted to them because you created them
@Ozymandiaz The point I am making is in and around empathy. In order to feel that AI is anything other than a computer program people would need to feel some kind of empathy for it.
I suspect that theist's lack of empathy for people would make this a hard sell.
God is all wise, all loving, and all just, and though we may participate, in his creativity in a secondary way (as all of our creations are but manipulations of His Creation); we nonetheless, in our fallen state, fall far short of His wisdom, love, and justice. The analogy is thus limited.
We don't even need AI to this point. It's been said by many parents, "I've brought you into this world. I can take you out." The concept is the same that just because you caused someone else to exist, that person has no value of their own and you as their creator have right to do with them as if they were mere property.
@Pikachu It's pretty clear who decides on the legal definition. Who decides on the philosophical definition? I think we need to be as precise as possible in defining words and making sure we're in agreement.
No, i would not feel morally justified in killing or abusing my AI creation on the basis that i had created it and it wasn't behaving the way i wanted it to.
I'm glad to hear it, Pikachu, neither would I. I respect my Heavenly Father's wise authoritative character.
I legitimately don't know why this interaction has become so contentious.
I'm gonna just ignore the assumptions about my motivations and character there. I can only address them via an ongoing interaction which is subject to your charity.
It would have be interesting if you were "actually" serious, mature and mindful.
Well i don't know about mature but i am serious. If you value the opportunity for at least the potential of an earnest discussion over putting me in my place then i urge you to carry on.
The ball is in your court. I'd be happy to discuss the subject. If you are not then you have yourself a pleasant evening and i hope we'll interact again under better circumstances✌️
