3 ms·

I don't think I'm talking about fiction. OK, how about looking at it this way: At some point game designers will need to start simulating things like 'fear' to

I don't think I'm talking about fiction. OK, how about looking at it this way: At some point game designers will need to start simulating things like 'fear' to make NPCs more realistic. Then imagine the simulation getting better and better and better. Its easy to imagine them simulating a whole complex range of feelings and responses, simulating an inner-world for the NPCs. Then apply moore's law and let the simulations exponentially improve in accuracy and fidelity year on year. At what point would simulations of fear and terror in NPCs start to make you feel uneasy? Unless you believe in dualism or some sort of bio-centrism that means machines can never be conscious, I think there are interesting ethical issues there.

Zarath 9y ago
Can't believe you are receiving downvotes my friend. It seems very likely that consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system. Given that this is the case, if we have a computational system such that it sufficiently mimics all nonphysical human behavior, it's very tough to argue that it does not share consciousness, especially if you are not a solipsist.
_s 9y ago
If machines develop a conscious; then at that point, by definition, they should be self-aware enough to recognise that they are a machine; ergo our definition and understanding of "life" itself is something that needs to change, no? For the time being I think there will always be a clear divide between biological life (as we know it currently), and "virtual" or machine life, as we create it - I think these ethical questions will come in to play when the two become intermixed enough to not be distinguishable one way or another, which I think is still a far way off. The reason I say the above is just based on our history as a species, and our current treatment of biological life - I think "virtual" life will likely be treated as 2nd class compared to biological life, at least at the beginning.
- wst_ 9y ago
  By what definition? Could you point to any resource that defines such case? I am seeing it completely opposite. Assuming they gain a self awareness, they would know nothing about server they are living on. They wouldn't know a thing about our world or about the player. They'd think that their world is the one and, if any, will see other servers or our world as some sort of "heaven" or another dimension. Would you know if our universe would run on some server? That is, unless someone told them that they have been created for a sake of entertainment and will die as soon as player is bored enough to uninstall the game. Which would probably make them behave completely different than expected, since they would know they aren't "real". Not to mention that it would simply be a cruel thing to do, considering above mentioned assumption.
stale2002 9y ago
What if instead of simulating someone who is afraid, what if you instead simulate a really good actor who is only pretending to be afraid, and loves being in a video game? Moral quandary solved! I mean, I could certainly imagine myself having a good time pretending to be the bad guys who fight the player character.
- codeulike 9y ago
  Yes that's an interesting angle on it

Zarath 9y ago

Can't believe you are receiving downvotes my friend. It seems very likely that consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system. Given that this is the case, if we have a computational system such that it sufficiently mimics all nonphysical human behavior, it's very tough to argue that it does not share consciousness, especially if you are not a solipsist.

_s 9y ago

If machines develop a conscious; then at that point, by definition, they should be self-aware enough to recognise that they are a machine; ergo our definition and understanding of "life" itself is something that needs to change, no? For the time being I think there will always be a clear divide between biological life (as we know it currently), and "virtual" or machine life, as we create it - I think these ethical questions will come in to play when the two become intermixed enough to not be distinguishable one way or another, which I think is still a far way off. The reason I say the above is just based on our history as a species, and our current treatment of biological life - I think "virtual" life will likely be treated as 2nd class compared to biological life, at least at the beginning.

wst_ 9y ago
By what definition? Could you point to any resource that defines such case? I am seeing it completely opposite. Assuming they gain a self awareness, they would know nothing about server they are living on. They wouldn't know a thing about our world or about the player. They'd think that their world is the one and, if any, will see other servers or our world as some sort of "heaven" or another dimension. Would you know if our universe would run on some server? That is, unless someone told them that they have been created for a sake of entertainment and will die as soon as player is bored enough to uninstall the game. Which would probably make them behave completely different than expected, since they would know they aren't "real". Not to mention that it would simply be a cruel thing to do, considering above mentioned assumption.

stale2002 9y ago

What if instead of simulating someone who is afraid, what if you instead simulate a really good actor who is only pretending to be afraid, and loves being in a video game? Moral quandary solved! I mean, I could certainly imagine myself having a good time pretending to be the bad guys who fight the player character.

codeulike 9y ago
Yes that's an interesting angle on it