That's not the point. Most workplaces don't allow unauthorized 3rd-party software on work computers.

work computer. cant download shit.

That's not the point. Most workplaces don't allow unauthorized 3rd-party software on work computers.

Is there a cooler precognition duel move in Star Wars I missed?

everyone shits on this part where they fling the lightsabers at each other, but the strike that comes right after is the bomb.

Like, stop.

Not really, they mostly look great.

Truth.

I think you missed the point that I was trying to make. Creating an AI that would be akin to a human would forever be a fallacy, this has nothing to do with humans being perfect or not. No matter how good the team of programmers got close to creating an ai resembling a human it still by the laws of nature wouldn't be human since it wasn't conceived by sperm and egg. At the end of the day, a corporation that hired a team of programmers is going to create the AI and there is nothing special about that since all that's about is monetary gain. No random joe is just ganna create some AI in his basement because he wants a "family". Human life is about propagating and spreading their species, a race for survival. Creating these traits in an AI would be an illusion and it would be extremely detrimental to mankind to think that the life an AI would be equal or greater to that of a human.

Humans > AI not Humans == AI or AI > Humans

I know that you don't like the arguments that appeal to emotion but if some random joe had the choice between saving some baby AI that was programmed to be "similar" to a baby human or a real baby, who is the random joe ganna save? I'd really gosh darn hope that would be an easy choice for you. I'm trying to make you see through example why thinking AI are equal to humans would be extremely volatile.

But that's my problem
If an intelligence is constructed, I don't get as far as considering it 'alive' in the first place

I'll wait for a couple centuries to re-think my position then

Of course the AI would be easy and cheap(free) to recreate. It would basically be very similar to a operating system. What would be expensive is the hardware to run the artificial intelligence. It wouldn't make any sense to create a new operating system (or in other words artificial intelligence) for each piece of hardware. In my opinion, in the future if artificial intelligence were to be created it would just be copy pasta and their deviations from each other would be entirely environmental.

It's not letting me reply to your latest response. Anyways, it's a contraction because people don't get sent to prison for murder for destroying a supercomputer. They get sent to jail for property damage and possibly pay compensation. A supercomputer != human life.

That is because you implied that an ai would be something cheap and easy to create and recreate, which I think is nonsense. I tried to use real world values to show the implications of such a scenario.

Since, you know, there are no real AI yet, and hopefully won't be.

Aha! I got you! You just compared crushing a cockroach with artificial intelligence to a supercomputer instead of a human life. You just made the biggest contradiction to your whole entire argument right there.

... cost + effort wise? I don't really see the contradiction.
And if this all is just about "getting me" you could have just asked, I'm available -3-