3 ms·

Bits are bits, regardless of how "advanced" they are, they're still bits. "Killing" them (if you can call it that) is fine. If your life depends on someone else

Bits are bits, regardless of how "advanced" they are, they're still bits. "Killing" them (if you can call it that) is fine. If your life depends on someone else's hardware, their rights trump yours. Of course, no sane developer would ever use something at that level for a game, it'd just be emulating way too much useless stuff. Clever game bots are much simpler than that - simply picking a less than "optimal" path sometimes and giving them the ability to cheat in some ways makes things a lot more interesting.

codeulike 9y ago
OK, lets assume that its possible to simulate a human mind well enough that the difference is indistinguishable (this is a very familiar idea in a lot of sci-fi, uploading consciousness and all that sort of thing). If you accept that assumption, things very quickly get complicated. Would it be OK to kill a virtual copy of a person? If so, on what basis? That people running in biological brains are somehow more real than digital ones? Why? How do you know you're not running in a simulation right now, etc etc.
- problems 9y ago
  It's always okay to kill a virtual copy of any person on the basis that they're not real as they can simply be duplicated and manipulated in the same way as any other data or software on a machine - a machine which I own. Because I own the machine which houses them, if I can create them, copy them, etc, I can decide to kill them at my will. > How do you know you're not running in a simulation right now, etc etc. Ultimately, I don't care. If I'm running on someone's console and they can hit ctrl+c on me, then they can do that, there's nothing morally wrong with them doing that because they own me at a much deeper level, I run on their hardware. In the same way that I'm okay with abortion, I'm okay with this - your dependence on someone or something else is a defining factor of your rights as an individual. If you depend on a machine that someone else is free to control, their rights trump yours.
  - castellar 9y ago
    I think it's vast oversimplification to say a situation like this is always ok. Legally, you may be allowed to do such a thing currently but it's obvious there's a moral grey area here. Hypothetically, say technology advances and not only do we have sophisticated AI but the technology to copy and store human intelligence. You do just that for a friend and that friend passes away. You now have the only extant copy of your friends intelligence and you notice that it's extremely similar in composition and cognition as an AI you also have on your drive. Is it ethical to delete either? I'd lean towards no.
    - problems 9y ago
      There's no moral grey area. It's my hardware, I decide what it does. Plain and simple. I own it, I own all contents of it. The only "grey area" you're creating is by copying existing humans - that's confusing the issue with a separate one. Owning a copy of an existing human is in and of itself a much, much bigger moral grey area than killing AIs and does indeed raise many more questions - solely because they're based on real humans though and we must consider the original human's choices - maybe simple consent is all that's needed. If they were AI solely, there would be a clear ownership path and all of your questions would go away.
      - an27 9y ago
        What if you bought a copy of a person's mind from him, and put it into a few clones and/or robotic bodies. Would it matter to you if the conscious entity was organic or mechanic? Would it matter to you that the copy was from a human, and not "developped from scratch"? Do you think all highly intelligent conscious being should have a right to freedom from slavery, or does it only apply to natural-born humans?
      - vmasto 9y ago
        Would you also accept being tortured for fun on a daily basis by your "owner" in the "do we live in a simulation" example? Would it be ethical to torture a sentient being existing in your hardware, for fun? Why do you believe ownership is decided based on residence? Do I own my pet dog? Is it ok to torture it? I think you are grossly underestimating countless nuances of the ethicalities AI brings to the table.
nilved 9y ago
> Atoms are atoms, regardless of how "advanced" they are, they're still atoms. "Killing" people (if you can call it that) is fine.
- problems 9y ago
  You're making a false equivalence of bits and atoms. An individual owns the bits on their hardware - no one owns all atoms or atoms comprising another individual. If someone has ultimate control over all the atoms in the universe, then I'd say indeed they have no moral obligation to keep you or I alive. Depending on someone else for life means their right to their own hardware is more important your right to life. The pro-choice campaign has made this argument very well if you'd like to read into it.
- vectorpush 9y ago
  Your analogy doesn't really say much except that you endorse the idea that bits and atoms are comparable with regard to the "realness" of what they compose, but that assumption is the crux of the debate. One could just as easily say "letters are letters, regardless of how advanced they are, they're still letters. 'Killing' people (if you can call it that) is fine", yet the analogy on it's own fails to enlighten the argument if one already rejects the idea that people composed of text in a work of fiction are real.
FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
>Bits are bits, regardless of how "advanced By the same token quarks are quarks. I think a better way to approach this is to azk the question "Does it suffer" Pets are considered property and ultimately their lives are based upon not your Hardware but your resources, your ability to provide them with food, shelter, etc. Although we provide for them, we have laws against animal torture, cruelty, etc.
- problems 9y ago
  But we don't do the same thing for things which have full dependence, fetuses for example. Your dependence defines your right to life, if you depend on someone else's hardware entirely to simply live, you have no right to life as you are owned in full by them.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
    > But we don't do the same thing for things which have full dependence, fetuses for example I dont think a fetus is exempt totally because of its complete dependence. Its because a fetus, while a human being, is not a person. But Im less interested in the legal reasoning and more interested in the moral one. If the AI is sufficiently advanced enough that it develops a synthetic consciousness and can experience suffering, does that make it ok that it suffers for entertainment? If there were a god responsible for the creation of the universe, many people find the notion of a god that allows suffering without good reason distasteful (often, this is the 1st step tiwards atheism for those raised in religious environments) despite. Said god's omnipotence is no justification for them
    - problems 9y ago
      Bits cannot suffer, they simply simulate suffering. Just because your tamagatchi is a really good tamagatchi that can simulate a human brain doesn't make it immoral to torture it - it's still just a simulation. It takes biological matter to suffer. Many animals experience suffering in a way much closer to humans and we by and large don't even concern ourselves with their suffering. Concerning ourselves with the suffering of AI seems so much less important to me. I'll sooner concern myself with killing a mosquito than an AI.

codeulike 9y ago

OK, lets assume that its possible to simulate a human mind well enough that the difference is indistinguishable (this is a very familiar idea in a lot of sci-fi, uploading consciousness and all that sort of thing). If you accept that assumption, things very quickly get complicated. Would it be OK to kill a virtual copy of a person? If so, on what basis? That people running in biological brains are somehow more real than digital ones? Why? How do you know you're not running in a simulation right now, etc etc.

problems 9y ago
It's always okay to kill a virtual copy of any person on the basis that they're not real as they can simply be duplicated and manipulated in the same way as any other data or software on a machine - a machine which I own. Because I own the machine which houses them, if I can create them, copy them, etc, I can decide to kill them at my will. > How do you know you're not running in a simulation right now, etc etc. Ultimately, I don't care. If I'm running on someone's console and they can hit ctrl+c on me, then they can do that, there's nothing morally wrong with them doing that because they own me at a much deeper level, I run on their hardware. In the same way that I'm okay with abortion, I'm okay with this - your dependence on someone or something else is a defining factor of your rights as an individual. If you depend on a machine that someone else is free to control, their rights trump yours.
- castellar 9y ago
  I think it's vast oversimplification to say a situation like this is always ok. Legally, you may be allowed to do such a thing currently but it's obvious there's a moral grey area here. Hypothetically, say technology advances and not only do we have sophisticated AI but the technology to copy and store human intelligence. You do just that for a friend and that friend passes away. You now have the only extant copy of your friends intelligence and you notice that it's extremely similar in composition and cognition as an AI you also have on your drive. Is it ethical to delete either? I'd lean towards no.
  - problems 9y ago
    There's no moral grey area. It's my hardware, I decide what it does. Plain and simple. I own it, I own all contents of it. The only "grey area" you're creating is by copying existing humans - that's confusing the issue with a separate one. Owning a copy of an existing human is in and of itself a much, much bigger moral grey area than killing AIs and does indeed raise many more questions - solely because they're based on real humans though and we must consider the original human's choices - maybe simple consent is all that's needed. If they were AI solely, there would be a clear ownership path and all of your questions would go away.
    - an27 9y ago
      What if you bought a copy of a person's mind from him, and put it into a few clones and/or robotic bodies. Would it matter to you if the conscious entity was organic or mechanic? Would it matter to you that the copy was from a human, and not "developped from scratch"? Do you think all highly intelligent conscious being should have a right to freedom from slavery, or does it only apply to natural-born humans?
    - vmasto 9y ago
      Would you also accept being tortured for fun on a daily basis by your "owner" in the "do we live in a simulation" example? Would it be ethical to torture a sentient being existing in your hardware, for fun? Why do you believe ownership is decided based on residence? Do I own my pet dog? Is it ok to torture it? I think you are grossly underestimating countless nuances of the ethicalities AI brings to the table.

nilved 9y ago

> Atoms are atoms, regardless of how "advanced" they are, they're still atoms. "Killing" people (if you can call it that) is fine.

problems 9y ago
You're making a false equivalence of bits and atoms. An individual owns the bits on their hardware - no one owns all atoms or atoms comprising another individual. If someone has ultimate control over all the atoms in the universe, then I'd say indeed they have no moral obligation to keep you or I alive. Depending on someone else for life means their right to their own hardware is more important your right to life. The pro-choice campaign has made this argument very well if you'd like to read into it.
vectorpush 9y ago
Your analogy doesn't really say much except that you endorse the idea that bits and atoms are comparable with regard to the "realness" of what they compose, but that assumption is the crux of the debate. One could just as easily say "letters are letters, regardless of how advanced they are, they're still letters. 'Killing' people (if you can call it that) is fine", yet the analogy on it's own fails to enlighten the argument if one already rejects the idea that people composed of text in a work of fiction are real.

FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago

>Bits are bits, regardless of how "advanced By the same token quarks are quarks. I think a better way to approach this is to azk the question "Does it suffer" Pets are considered property and ultimately their lives are based upon not your Hardware but your resources, your ability to provide them with food, shelter, etc. Although we provide for them, we have laws against animal torture, cruelty, etc.

problems 9y ago
But we don't do the same thing for things which have full dependence, fetuses for example. Your dependence defines your right to life, if you depend on someone else's hardware entirely to simply live, you have no right to life as you are owned in full by them.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
  > But we don't do the same thing for things which have full dependence, fetuses for example I dont think a fetus is exempt totally because of its complete dependence. Its because a fetus, while a human being, is not a person. But Im less interested in the legal reasoning and more interested in the moral one. If the AI is sufficiently advanced enough that it develops a synthetic consciousness and can experience suffering, does that make it ok that it suffers for entertainment? If there were a god responsible for the creation of the universe, many people find the notion of a god that allows suffering without good reason distasteful (often, this is the 1st step tiwards atheism for those raised in religious environments) despite. Said god's omnipotence is no justification for them
  - problems 9y ago
    Bits cannot suffer, they simply simulate suffering. Just because your tamagatchi is a really good tamagatchi that can simulate a human brain doesn't make it immoral to torture it - it's still just a simulation. It takes biological matter to suffer. Many animals experience suffering in a way much closer to humans and we by and large don't even concern ourselves with their suffering. Concerning ourselves with the suffering of AI seems so much less important to me. I'll sooner concern myself with killing a mosquito than an AI.