4 ms·
> These bots are just as human as any piece of human-made art, or any human-made monument. No one considers human-made art or human-made monuments to be human.
by KPGv2 8mo ago
> These bots are just as human as any piece of human-made art, or any human-made monument.
No one considers human-made art or human-made monuments to be human.
> You wouldn't desecrate any of those things, we hold that to be morally wrong
You will find a large number of people (probably the vast majority) will disagree, and instead say "if I own this art, I can dispose of it as I wish." Indeed, I bet most people have thrown away a novel at some point.
> why act like these AIs wouldn't deserve a comparable status
I'm confused. You seem to be arguing that the status you identified up top, "being as human as a human-made monument" is sufficient to grant human-like status. But we don't grant monuments human-like status. They can't vote. They don't get dating apps. They aren't granted rights. Etc.
I rather like the position you've unintentionally advocated for: an AI is akin to a man-made work of art, and thus should get the same protections as something like a painting. Read: virtually none.
- zozbot234 8mo ago> No one considers human-made art or human-made monuments to be human. How can art not be human, when it's a human creation? That seems self-contradictory. > They can't vote... They get a vote where it matters, though. For example, the presence of a historic building can be the decisive "vote" on whether an area can be redeveloped or not. Why would we ever do that, if not out of a sense that the very presence of that building has acquired some sense of indirect moral worth?
- anonymars 8mo agoMaybe you could give us your definition of "human"? I wouldn't say my trousers are human, created by one though they might be
- SetTheorist 8mo agoThere is no general rule that something created by an X is therefore an X. (I have difficulty in even understanding the state of mind that would assert such a claim.) My printer prints out documents. Those documents are not printers. My cat produces hair-balls on the carpet. Those hairballs are not cats. A human creating an artifact does not make that artifact a human.
- zozbot234 8mo agoBut that's not the argument GP made. They said that there's nothing at all that's human about art or such things, which is a bit like saying that a cat's hairballs don't have something vaguely cat-like about them, merely because a hairball isn't an actual cat.
- anonymars 8mo agoSo presumably what you are saying is something along the lines of, "A human creating an artifact does make that artifact human", i.e. "A human creating an artifact does make that artifact a human artifact." But does that narrow facet have a bearing on the topic of "AI rights" / morality of AI use? Is it immoral to drive a car or use a toaster? Or to later recycle (destroy) them?