5 ms·
This must be propaganda for "intelligent design" or some such philosophy. To most readers it will make no sense.
by bloak 7y ago
This must be propaganda for "intelligent design" or some such philosophy. To most readers it will make no sense.
- yters 7y agoThe question is whether AI should be given moral value. The premise is something has to be alive to gain moral value, and the scientists provide a definition of life that excludes AI. Hence, AI cannot have moral value. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Not sure why you are calling it propaganda. I would call this an argument with which the reader can agree or disagree.
- bloak 7y agoIt raises a lot of questions, though. What does "moral value" mean? Why should something be "alive" to gain "moral value"? What has "life" got to do with "AI"? And what kind of "scientists" would get involved with this kind of waffle? Perhaps, with the current state of our knowledge, these questions can not be answered!
- yters 7y agoIt is a short article, so relies a lot on what someone might find intuitively plausible and goes from there. Scientists also have interests outside of their particular field, and might offer an opinion where their field is relevant to a broader discussion. The questions may not be answerable, but then again they may. All we can do is make an attempt and see how it goes.