3 ms·

What if a robot is created that makes other robots, and those robots make other robots, and eventually we lose control of the process? Is that natural or artifi

What if a robot is created that makes other robots, and those robots make other robots, and eventually we lose control of the process? Is that natural or artificial? What if these are "biological robots" in that they are artificially constructed animals? If we can make that leap then I think we might be able to make the same leap for a pure software version of this, no? And what if it program evolved to solve problems that no one intended, and we interact with it in ways that valued it as sentient life? Could it win the Nobel prize then? Just a thought.

adventured 5y ago
You can drop some of that out easily to reduce the mess. It doesn't matter whether something is biological or not, that isn't a valid defining qualification for natural vs artificial. Once the robots are self-sustaining and self-determining, away from their creator, any reproduction on their part is natural. Once their existence is governed of their own processes, fully independent of eg intentional, controlled human inputs. This is conceptually absolutely no different than a bug or animal creating a new plant/virus/bacteria/whatever through some behavior (in that case typically inadvertently; however intentional or non-intentional has no bearing on the outcome re natural vs artificial, it doesn't matter whether it's intentional or not). People get comically high-minded about humans. Whether we create a new virus by accident or an independent robot, once the thing is independent of us, released into the wild so to speak, it's into a natural process that governs it (where in this case natural means, basically, not especially tightly controlled by human dictation). There is a gradient element to all of this, which makes it seem more complex or difficult to figure than it really is; at the edges it's obvious, near the switch-over it's murky. The important defining factor is the process that the thing is being governed by, not the process under which it was created (or its ancestors & heirs were created). It doesn't matter how a thing is created, that doesn't determine natural vs artificial, it matters what its attributes and capabilities are post creation. Obviously it's easy to go so far as to claim that all things are natural, since everything is of nature and nothing can exist outside of nature. However the definition is meant to be more precise here, as I think is understood.
- danbruc 5y ago
  The important defining factor is the process that the thing is being governed by, not the process under which it was created (or its ancestors & heirs were created). I looked through a few dictionary and they mostly agree that artificial just means man-made.

adventured 5y ago

You can drop some of that out easily to reduce the mess. It doesn't matter whether something is biological or not, that isn't a valid defining qualification for natural vs artificial. Once the robots are self-sustaining and self-determining, away from their creator, any reproduction on their part is natural. Once their existence is governed of their own processes, fully independent of eg intentional, controlled human inputs. This is conceptually absolutely no different than a bug or animal creating a new plant/virus/bacteria/whatever through some behavior (in that case typically inadvertently; however intentional or non-intentional has no bearing on the outcome re natural vs artificial, it doesn't matter whether it's intentional or not). People get comically high-minded about humans. Whether we create a new virus by accident or an independent robot, once the thing is independent of us, released into the wild so to speak, it's into a natural process that governs it (where in this case natural means, basically, not especially tightly controlled by human dictation). There is a gradient element to all of this, which makes it seem more complex or difficult to figure than it really is; at the edges it's obvious, near the switch-over it's murky. The important defining factor is the process that the thing is being governed by, not the process under which it was created (or its ancestors & heirs were created). It doesn't matter how a thing is created, that doesn't determine natural vs artificial, it matters what its attributes and capabilities are post creation. Obviously it's easy to go so far as to claim that all things are natural, since everything is of nature and nothing can exist outside of nature. However the definition is meant to be more precise here, as I think is understood.

danbruc 5y ago
The important defining factor is the process that the thing is being governed by, not the process under which it was created (or its ancestors & heirs were created). I looked through a few dictionary and they mostly agree that artificial just means man-made.