something wrong with my fj, this is the third time a comments gone to a different content

I don't know how true that is.
As a traveling America who has been all around the states.
I've seen maybe 10-20 Muslims in my whole life tops.
20 years, that's like 1 a year.

The difference is the content was a joke and you were making up a blatant lie.

so calling the UK a muslim nation isnt also a blatant lie told for the sake of humour?

The key here is it was humurous exaggeration. You just presented a false exaggerated statement in a way no one would interpret as a joke.

Now I'd you would have phrased it different and linked a fake page or something, I'd feel differently.

im in the positive so some people found it funny. only people who dont are americans who get butthurt when someone gives them the same shit they give everyone else.

my exageration was 0.8% to 8% so thats an exageration of 7.2%

calling the UK muslim would mean the UK is at least 51% muslim IE majority muslim
so the contents exageration is from 5% to 51% thats 46% exageration.

my comment was closer to the truth than the content.

I think you underestimate the amount of people who would just thumb up a comment just because they agreed with the sentiment.

And you say that like America doesn't get made fun of by Europeans about oil, guns, healthcare, obesity, more guns, big military, and education. It seems more like you're unable to take satire.

And that's irrelevant honestly. Everyone knows that the UK isn't a Muslim nation.

Like I said, I'd have been cool with it if it was satire, but instead you just fabricated something.

That is absolutely false.

The highest estimates out there state that there are 8 million American Muslims. This is AT MOST.

The most accepted figure, though, is 2.5-3 million, which barely makes up one percent of the population.

now compare how many are refugees in both countries and get back to us

bro, america was made by immigrants from all around the world

and grew with immigration from all around the world, from africa to asia

He didn't say "created", he said it was MADE by immigrants.

The difference being that when you "create" something, you bring it into being. When you then "make" that created thing into something, it's MADE. America was "created" by Englishmen, but it was "made" what it is today by immigrants that followed much later.

Let me put it this way:
It's easy to create something, say, invent something.
But when it's "made" is only when someone takes that thing that has already been created, and makes it into a better product, improving it. Like the saying goes, "they took that something, and made it into what we know and love today".

Just because something is created, it doesn't mean it will naturally prosper on its own.

Oh anon

i think he means the us is bigger. so it has bigger penis problems when not erect.

there are approx. 10-12 million muslims in the USA

he wants to track muslim immigrants you retard

I read 2.77 million. Either way, his number is exaggerated.

But...it's the current year...

you got the original video of this?

funny one
np fam

It's actually 4GB believe it or not. The last 500MB is just much slower.

oh I know, I just posted it cause its funny

That it is, that it is.

original one

thanks fam

As for the AI starting out in an infant stage would be pretty pointless imo. Even if the AI were to be programmed in an infant state it would still be an illusion to think it's akin to a human baby. I think this is really important to discuss and I know this argument is an appeal to emotion but if some random person had the choice of saving an infant ai or an actual human baby I'd hope that person would choose the human baby. Nothing what a programmer would make would compare or hold more value than an actual human life.

I think this is really important to stress and I can't stress this point enough, even if the AI was programmed to learn and grow and an extremely simple example is cleverbot, it would still be an illusion to think the AI is actually doing all of that. If cleverbot AI was shutdown and discarded it wouldn't be murder it would be the programmer moving on with his life. According to your definition, cleverbot meets your qualifications as a life form with conscious thinking. If cleverbot was shutdown you probably wouldn't care in the slightest and neither would I for good reason. You may try to argue that cleverbot isn't life because it was programmed for a specific purpose but when it comes down to it, cleverbot is thinking and it's learning albeit in a simple manner. If you don't think cleverbot is a life then you are already discriminating against the primitive AI! But the discrimination against the the primitive AI is an illusion! It isn't life because it was programmed. Anything artificially created isn't life not because it lacks human characteristics, but because at the end of the day, the AI will be created by some corporation trying to make money. The way you make it sound is the AI will be created by random joes simply because they want a "family". This is probably too far off in the future anyways, but it's extremely concerning and dangerous to think AI will be equal to a human life since it will come to the detriment of mankind.

I sincerely hope that never in the future that AI will NEVER be equal to a human or have greater worth than a human life. Humans > AI not Humans == AI

I think we can agree if artificial life were to be created in the future
1) It wouldn't be in the shape of a human,
2) It would most likely come with features that could be customized such as personality, emotions, etc.,
3) The AI would be akin to an operating system or game engine. Think of how game developers make games. Game developers use the same engine for creating games for many years until they need to catch up with technology. It wouldn't make any sense to create a new game engine for each game. AI will most likely be more complex than an operating system so it wouldn't make much sense to create unique AI (or operating system) for each piece of hardware. The AI would be created and the deviations from each other would be settings, the version of the firmware, and environment. Other than that AI would just be a copy pasta fest the same way Windows sells it's operating system.

Why do I mention these points? I feel like all these qualities will detract an AI from qualifying as an actual human but this is just speculation. In my opinion, no matter how sophisticated AI will become, even if it becomes superior to humans in every mental capacity, it's still just a piece of software and if someone were to destroy a piece of hardware containing this AI, it would be just the same as destroying a ps4 (obviously the hardware containing this AI would be more expensive than a ps4). Remember, at the end of the day if a programmer were to create AI and it had all these human qualities, it would be an illusion to think it's a human being. I'm not a religious person but I think it's important to consider life, actual consciousness, will always reside in humans and AI will just be an emulation of human characteristics. At the end of the day, it would be a programmer creating AI for money and destroying a piece of hardware containing AI would be the same as property damage and not murder. An AI with human characteristics is an illusion to think it's human. Only humans are humans.

I agree with 1- it wont look human, the human body is a mechanical nightmare, the programming and building involved to make a human like body would be ridiculous. for example a machine that moves as a human finger does alone requires several gear sets to move in the way a human finger does. a whole body would simply be impractical with the technology we have available.
MAYBE future technology allows us to create a synthetic brain which could be placed inside a human body. but thats entirely science fiction at the moment

id have to disagree with 2. if the AI's personality is editable. it wouldnt be life. an AI that is living would be one which grows of its own accord. which changes and develops through experiences and senses. the AI would start as a "baby" in that sense, but would develop and learn and it would self programme, like the human mind does. of course it would have basic settings there, the "sub concious" would be a pre-programmed part, same as ours, it would inherently know how to move, and operate its "body" if it had a body and how to behave. but its concious would be entirely raw, it would develop of its own accord. learning and developing as it grows.

as for 3. id say possibly. but i imagine that the things we will use to make artificial life are beyond what we yet imagine. the technology will be way different from what we use today. trying to imagine the tech for artificial life now, is like a person from the 30s trying to imagine the hadron collider.

realistically i think AI cant qualify for life because their is no solid criteria for what life is. there isnt a bunch of boxes that we can tick and say "yes this is life now" so its entirely personal choice, do you think it is life? whatever answer you give you're right and wrong at the same time. life isnt measurable, at what point does something become "living". this was an issue brought up well in the movie ex machina, you as the viewer could decide whether the machine was alive or not, but theres no right answer to whether she was or wasnt. her ability to persuade you shes alive is either proof shes living or its proof she is a well programmed machine.


and ive said this. im not saying AI will be HUMAN. AI will be its own form of lfie entirely. it will be based on human intellect and our design, but it wont be human. it will be alive though. think of artificial life as a new species. one nothing like biological life. biological life comes from evolution and artificial life is intelligent design. it would be different from us, very different. but it would be alive nonetheless.

As for the AI starting out in an infant stage would be pretty pointless imo. Even if the AI were to be programmed in an infant state it would still be an illusion to think it's akin to a human baby. I think this is really important to discuss and I know this argument is an appeal to emotion but if some random person had the choice of saving an infant ai or an actual human baby I'd hope that person would choose the human baby. Nothing what a programmer would make would compare or hold more value than an actual human life.

I think this is really important to stress and I can't stress this point enough, even if the AI was programmed to learn and grow and an extremely simple example is cleverbot, it would still be an illusion to think the AI is actually doing all of that. If cleverbot AI was shutdown and discarded it wouldn't be murder it would be the programmer moving on with his life. According to your definition, cleverbot meets your qualifications as a life form with conscious thinking. If cleverbot was shutdown you probably wouldn't care in the slightest and neither would I for good reason. You may try to argue that cleverbot isn't life because it was programmed for a specific purpose but when it comes down to it, cleverbot is thinking and it's learning albeit in a simple manner. If you don't think cleverbot is a life then you are already discriminating against the primitive AI! But the discrimination against the the primitive AI is an illusion! It isn't life because it was programmed. Anything artificially created isn't life not because it lacks human characteristics, but because at the end of the day, the AI will be created by some corporation trying to make money. The way you make it sound is the AI will be created by random joes simply because they want a "family". This is probably too far off in the future anyways, but it's extremely concerning and dangerous to think AI will be equal to a human life since it will come to the detriment of mankind.

I sincerely hope that never in the future that AI will NEVER be equal to a human or have greater worth than a human life. Humans > AI not Humans == AI

And now the crying begins

We are not machines
You are delusional

We are a collection of living organisms
We are grown and not constructed

What is growth, other than a type of self construction? The process needs materials, follows rigid rules, it can be influenced by outside forces and our own volition. If there is a big enough deviation, we are deemed faulty.
Tumors aren't evolution, they are a mistake. Unfunctioning appendages - faults in the genes (blueprints). Personality defects - bad programming.

Our body is a self repairing machine that is fueled by food, water and air. We have access to the controls, but not the developer's kit (and I'm NOT implying there WAS a developer), at least not yet and not directly.

If we constructed a machine that is capable of independent though, forming new memories and experiences, how would they not be equal to us? Just because you say so?

It would not be equal by virtue that it was constructed, and everything that being constructed entails which separates the construct from a living greatre that has grown organically, and was born

though Im not sure what you mean by equal

Do remember
this entire argument where everyone is offended by me and must give their all in detailing just how awful a bigot I am started
because I said I would not feel sad for a robot being destroyed, as I do not believe their 'pain' is a real experience

When you talk equality youre getting into ares of rights and treatment and things of that nature and this whole mess turns political
when my stance was not a political one at all

Just keep that in mind

I would argue that we HAVE to include this side of things - this is a multi-faceted issue. I simply don't think that if an intelligence is constructed, if that intelligence is "alive", that they shouldn't be viewed as a person.

Imagine synthetic compound that can "grow" by having mass added and reshaped. Or heck, a program able to do the same in its algorythm. Your separation between grown/constructed may become really muddy in a couple centuries.

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

I got a really interesting question to ask you. If these robots were ever to exist in the future and had all these capabilities such as feeling emotion, pain, etc., and someone were to destroy one of these robots, should that person be sent to prison for murder? Or do you think it would be on the same level as animal cruelty? Or nobody is going to do anything since people would think of these robots having as much value as an expensive tv or toaster and not actually having any real biological application to life.

'had all these capabilities such as feeling emotion, pain, etc'

But that's just it
I don't believe that they do

If I were to assume otherwise, even for argument's sake, then everything Im saying is turned on it's head right from the get-go

It would just be an emulation of human characteristics, not actual human characteristics. There will never be such thing as creating the perfect AI that has every single human quality. Perfection is an illusion.

Right but that's my problem
I cant bring myself to feel for an emulator

same here

I'll leave it to you then. Good luck!

Since humans aren't perfect either, why couldn't that what makes us "us" be copied and executed? Everything that ever happened could be described by a mathematical formula with enough computational power. Human emotions, memories etc can be described in a similar way, unless you think that there is something that makes us special, like a soul or something similar.

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.

If the machine really had independent thought, ten I would put it on the same level as murder.

What would actually happen is debatable. How society would react would be dependent on how widespread these robots were, how many people interact with them on a daily basis, etc. It wouldn't matter if they were actually people, but if they were considered people.

What really strikes me as odd in these types of comics/literature etc., is why the sentient machines (when they are specifically stated to be sentient) don't protest or try to reason with humans, convince them that they are just as alive as them. They all seem so nihilistic, its really weird.

Now, are you just saying that because they look like humans?

What if they were designed to look like a cockroach and someone decided to smash it then.

I'm not. They could be a block of metal with a digital display for all I care, my argument is the same.
And designing an intelligence to be housed in a chassis of a cockroach sounds like a pretty stupid idea.

Well its important to know how artificial intelligence is designed. I agree it would be stupid to create something intelligent in the shape of a cockroach but I chose that example on purpose. It would also be incredibly stupid to design it to look like a human as well. Anyways, the reason why I chose that example is because if this comic was someone smashing a cockroach that had the artificial intelligence of a human you probably wouldn't care as much. However, you claimed that even if the artificial intelligence was stored in a metal cube with a display would have just as much value as a human life. It makes me wonder if your priorities are in order.

If it is, essentially, human-level intelligence, why not value it as such and why not classify its loss the same? Humans can be relatively cheaply reproduced, after all, it just takes some time. There is nothing to suggest that "living" ai wouldn't take some time to form and expand, so smashing a box or a bug body with such would waste the time and energy consumed in making it, waste its potential to do or think and leave behind a useless shell.

Now, what does murder essentially do? It wastes the time and energy consumed in making thet human grow, wastes their potential to do or think about something and leaves behind a useless corpse.
I'm leaving out emotional bonds for the sake of the argument. And who's to say machines can't have friends, just look at computers today, which are very much non-sentient.

I think you are missing the biggest point when it comes to wasting time and energy. What would be the point of creating something with artificial intelligence that can feel pain, emotions, and all these human qualities, blah, blah, it's all a complete waste. Why not just create the robot to think objectively 24/7 and have it's purpose to conduct scientific research. Anyways, that's a bit off topic.

In the heat of the moment when a building is on fire and you have a choice between saving a real human, or a metal cube with a display that has artificial human intelligence, who are you going to choose?

Also, I just kind of want to throw this in, technology gets outdated all the time. We used to use walkmans to listen to music and now people use iphones or android phones. Sure you can use a walkman today but it's not going to be as efficient; it's outdated technology. Eventually, certain models of artificial intelligence would get outdated and it would cost resources to maintain them. I don't think it would be cost efficient to maintain if it's just sitting there collecting dust. Sure you can compare lazy people to outdated artificial intelligence but the thing is, a lazy person is going to have more value because it's an actual human and not something a programmer made and then copied and pasted into thousands of other metal cubes with displays.

The burning building is an appeal to emotion, and it would come down to whether I liked the actual human enough, or not. If those were two people, I'd choose the one I know the best, that's how we work.

It seems to me that you think an actual ai would be something simple to make and distribute, like copying a simple application. Please remember that the human brain has more memory than any computer we can currently make and its architecture is pretty damn complex.

That is also why your argument doesn't make sense - crushing the cockroach would be more akin to destroying a supercomputer, rather than smashing an iphone.

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-

insulting me instead of the arguement is a fallacy and makes you seem a prick. im providing an arguement either debate it. if you wanna throw personal insults go to 4chan with all the other 13 year olds

And now the crying begins

No they wont
design is not evolution
evolution is not designed

the brain is a computer, but it isn't a machine
That's all there is to that, really

Intelligent design is a human thing, and in the world of living nature it doesnt exist
objects are intelligently designed
people are not


Organic material is still distinct from inorganic material
Something made from inorganic material which does not at some point become organic is not alive, organic matter is what turns inorganic matter into a living being

I am an organism, not a machine
machines are constructed and I was not
I was born and then I grew

yes a machine beats us at functional
That does not make it alive
better than human =/= human

Synthetic is the antithesis to Organic
That which is Synthetic is NOT Organic, and never will be

Machines are not living organisms, just as humans cannot fly
We built machines to fly in, and machines might emulate life
But they are not one and the same

a plane pilot is not, himself, a flying person
the plane is flying, he is being carried in it

So if something is made from organic matter, it's alive?
Make them from carbon fiber, simple as that.

carbon fiber isnt organic, but no that's not quite an accurate breakdown of what I said anyway

Except it is. It's a polymer, and therefore by definition it's organic.

can you harvest naturally grown carbon fiber
or do you have to produce it manually

That's not what organic means. Organic materials aren't some sort of magical thing, all organic compounds can be produced artificially. Have you not even taken middle school chemistry?

Well, I won't stop you from living in the 18th century if that's what you want to do.

tsk tsk

catty

because that's what 'person' means?

There are two definitions of evolution.
The first is "The process by which organic lifeforms developed over time"
and the other is "gradual development".
So, if we take out the organic lifeforms section, I can show that the first definition fits machinery in all other ways logically.

For evolution of lifeforms happened as small changes occurred in the lifeforms and those lifeforms succeeded and therefore could pass the improvements to later generations.

Now, to most people, those changes were due to random alterations in the genome. Assisted by various methods like non-pathogenesis. But to some these changes were the work of a god. This would mean that a god has tried small changes to the genome and allowed the alterations that improve to succeed. Whether or not it was controlled, evolution is the process of gradual change allowing some members of a niche to succeed over others.

Now that exact process occurs with machinery, organic lifeforms require air, water, sugar and nutrients/protiens/etc (the last one does not apply to all lifeforms, some lifeforms produce their own sugar but still require it to live), but machinery requires power, investiture & users. So as one type of a niche improves, it competes for these things. We use calculators because they improved their function over abacus' which allowed them to secure more investiture and users. This process mirrors evolution remarkably. Whether there was an intelligent being attempting to improve it is not entirely relevant, the process is duplicated almost exactly.
Machines experience evolution, on a different platform and for different resources but still evolution, design is not relevant to the process. Without design, machines (currently) could not experience it, but the process does occur.

Some people believe in intelligent design for organic beings, we do not dismiss them outright as that is their belief and their belief is protected as they are allowed to believe it. We, as a species, have decided that whether something experienced intelligent design does not detract from if it is alive.

We have organic computing, It's extremely basic but it does exist and will improve over time. And what if we had a perfect, virtualised, representation of a human brain? Atom for atom, it functions exactly the same as a real brain, would it have intelligence? For intelligence is indeed independent from life, you do not require one for the other, nor does one imply the other.

What you seek, in that case, is a form of composite intelligence compiled of self replicators, perhaps an "astrochicken" if you insist on organic components. There grow, these require a set of instructions which allow it to grow a complete body, repair it and allow the creation of a section of the body to experience intelligence and retain knowledge beyond the base instructions, which should logically be kept in every section. < That explanation of what they do could just as easily be applied to a human, but is mearly a more advanced reiteration of what you wrote in "I was boen and then I grew".

TO BE CONTINUED

CONTINUED

Beating us at functional activity is still evidence that they can perform functional activity, which you listed as a condition for life. My composite intelligence described before also fits the conditions of growth, reproduction and continual change preceding death, in this case via total destruction or control termination. Which are two ways in which humans die, but humans also die upon partial destruction.

What your final two points deal with, is actually incorrect in some not too obvious ways. machines currently emulate life, as they currently cannot be considered alive. Humans cannot currently fly in and of themselves, but our understanding of genetics is growing and with enough knowledge humans could fly, could breathe underwater, could see in more spectrum's than ever before, with enough knowledge, humans could do anything any animal could do and more. With enough knowledge, machines could be alive. At some point our knowledge will be great enough that biology and mechanics cannot be considered independent, machinery will have biological natures and biology must expand to incorporate this. Already biology has mechanical aspects as researchers begin mechanical interactions with organic life, such as the replacement of sensory information or interfacing machinery with nervous systems.

No they wont

Machines do not evolve, you only want to call their upgrade process an evolution, which is your semantic decision, and your problem
I call Pork the flesh of the gods, this does not make it so, as pork is the flesh of pigs

Machines do not require sustenance, they require energy, and occasionally maintenance. They do not require nutrition, and they do not grow. They exist as they are built and only through external modification can they change and "evolve"
You cannot feed a robot electric computer dust and have it work out and gain piston-mass or something
They are static constructs, not living beings
Not organic life

And all AI is going to do for them is, at the very best, give them organic minds
They still aren't people, and it will still be a matter of debate as to wether or not they are alive

But right now they aren't

Life: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."

yes they well as i said computers have designed their own repalcements so much that the scientists who started it no longer understand how the latest one works. its beyond their capabiltiy to understand.

the brain is a computer, its an organic computer which gives you all the things which you call "being alive". it produces all your emotion all the memories all your decisions are made by this computer.
a computer of equal complexity would do the same for a robot and that robot would feel just as alive as you. different yes but alive. its not gonna be a human. its not gonna be life in the traditional sense. but alive none the less. if it thinks and feels and endeavours to survive and thrive its doing everything life is meant to do.

organic matter is a collection of inorganic matter. your body is made from elements that are all compeltely mifeless put into jsut the right way to make you alive. a AI machine would be a colelction of inorganic materials organised in jsut the right way to make it alive

evolution takes time yes but not with intelligent design. humans didnt have superior beings to make us thats why evolution took so long, but humans are intelligent and we are designing machines so we can make machines advance alot faster by designing them. no need for natural processes

AI would also grow. its abiltiy to learn would mean it advanced got smarter changed over time. it may learn to be a kind AI through its life or it may become corrupt and bad, it might decide it likes reggae music but later develops a taste for jazz. it will grow and change throughout its life.

functional activity? a machine would beat us at that. a machine will be faster smarter and stronger than us in function. where we have to excersise to get strong a machine can simply transfer its concousness into a stronger body. something which we may be able to do aswell one day with organic bodies

all you are is an organic machine. a different form of life. one which has risen from natural processes and which became what it is through reproduction

a machine AI will be a synthetic machine, anotehr form of life one which has come from intelligent design one which self replciates like bacteria. improving over each new replication. the machines which work and live will replicate the next generation those that dont function correctly will not replciate.

people now who say machine life is not possible were the same people who said flying is impossible, and then said a bomb that can level cities is impossible and then said leaving the atmospere is impossble. then said that a computer that can be operated by an everyday person is impossible. that machines smarter than humans were impossible. wrong every time.

No they wont
design is not evolution
evolution is not designed

the brain is a computer, but it isn't a machine
That's all there is to that, really

Intelligent design is a human thing, and in the world of living nature it doesnt exist
objects are intelligently designed
people are not


Organic material is still distinct from inorganic material
Something made from inorganic material which does not at some point become organic is not alive, organic matter is what turns inorganic matter into a living being

I am an organism, not a machine
machines are constructed and I was not
I was born and then I grew

yes a machine beats us at functional
That does not make it alive
better than human =/= human

Synthetic is the antithesis to Organic
That which is Synthetic is NOT Organic, and never will be

Machines are not living organisms, just as humans cannot fly
We built machines to fly in, and machines might emulate life
But they are not one and the same

a plane pilot is not, himself, a flying person
the plane is flying, he is being carried in it

So if something is made from organic matter, it's alive?
Make them from carbon fiber, simple as that.

carbon fiber isnt organic, but no that's not quite an accurate breakdown of what I said anyway

Except it is. It's a polymer, and therefore by definition it's organic.

can you harvest naturally grown carbon fiber
or do you have to produce it manually

That's not what organic means. Organic materials aren't some sort of magical thing, all organic compounds can be produced artificially. Have you not even taken middle school chemistry?

Well, I won't stop you from living in the 18th century if that's what you want to do.

tsk tsk

catty

because that's what 'person' means?

There are two definitions of evolution.
The first is "The process by which organic lifeforms developed over time"
and the other is "gradual development".
So, if we take out the organic lifeforms section, I can show that the first definition fits machinery in all other ways logically.

For evolution of lifeforms happened as small changes occurred in the lifeforms and those lifeforms succeeded and therefore could pass the improvements to later generations.

Now, to most people, those changes were due to random alterations in the genome. Assisted by various methods like non-pathogenesis. But to some these changes were the work of a god. This would mean that a god has tried small changes to the genome and allowed the alterations that improve to succeed. Whether or not it was controlled, evolution is the process of gradual change allowing some members of a niche to succeed over others.

Now that exact process occurs with machinery, organic lifeforms require air, water, sugar and nutrients/protiens/etc (the last one does not apply to all lifeforms, some lifeforms produce their own sugar but still require it to live), but machinery requires power, investiture & users. So as one type of a niche improves, it competes for these things. We use calculators because they improved their function over abacus' which allowed them to secure more investiture and users. This process mirrors evolution remarkably. Whether there was an intelligent being attempting to improve it is not entirely relevant, the process is duplicated almost exactly.
Machines experience evolution, on a different platform and for different resources but still evolution, design is not relevant to the process. Without design, machines (currently) could not experience it, but the process does occur.

Some people believe in intelligent design for organic beings, we do not dismiss them outright as that is their belief and their belief is protected as they are allowed to believe it. We, as a species, have decided that whether something experienced intelligent design does not detract from if it is alive.

We have organic computing, It's extremely basic but it does exist and will improve over time. And what if we had a perfect, virtualised, representation of a human brain? Atom for atom, it functions exactly the same as a real brain, would it have intelligence? For intelligence is indeed independent from life, you do not require one for the other, nor does one imply the other.

What you seek, in that case, is a form of composite intelligence compiled of self replicators, perhaps an "astrochicken" if you insist on organic components. There grow, these require a set of instructions which allow it to grow a complete body, repair it and allow the creation of a section of the body to experience intelligence and retain knowledge beyond the base instructions, which should logically be kept in every section. < That explanation of what they do could just as easily be applied to a human, but is mearly a more advanced reiteration of what you wrote in "I was boen and then I grew".

TO BE CONTINUED

CONTINUED

Beating us at functional activity is still evidence that they can perform functional activity, which you listed as a condition for life. My composite intelligence described before also fits the conditions of growth, reproduction and continual change preceding death, in this case via total destruction or control termination. Which are two ways in which humans die, but humans also die upon partial destruction.

What your final two points deal with, is actually incorrect in some not too obvious ways. machines currently emulate life, as they currently cannot be considered alive. Humans cannot currently fly in and of themselves, but our understanding of genetics is growing and with enough knowledge humans could fly, could breathe underwater, could see in more spectrum's than ever before, with enough knowledge, humans could do anything any animal could do and more. With enough knowledge, machines could be alive. At some point our knowledge will be great enough that biology and mechanics cannot be considered independent, machinery will have biological natures and biology must expand to incorporate this. Already biology has mechanical aspects as researchers begin mechanical interactions with organic life, such as the replacement of sensory information or interfacing machinery with nervous systems.

Doesnt matter if we're "getting there"
It still won't make us machines, or machines people, and it certainly isn't relevant to the current situation of machines not being people either

Superiority is also irrelevant
They aren't people, regardless of if they're better in any way

Because you see, my actual problem
Is that my not sympathizing with robots is for whatever reason upsetting to you and others, who struggle at length to try and compare, to finagle words and terms into some butchered misshapen semblance of a relative comparison

Im not even advocating for the mis-treatment of machines
I just feel no sympathy for their non-suffering
They do not feel
They are not people

I mean at first this was an interesting contrast but
It's getting thinner and thinner and Im struggling to understand why youre so desperate to insist on this, when you've got nothing

THAT's my problem

we are machines

definitoon of machine -an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.

our body is a collection of many many parts all working for a particular task thats the simplest definition of what a human is. we are a colelction of parts organs, blood protiens, amino acids, all working together

We are not machines
You are delusional

We are a collection of living organisms
We are grown and not constructed

What is growth, other than a type of self construction? The process needs materials, follows rigid rules, it can be influenced by outside forces and our own volition. If there is a big enough deviation, we are deemed faulty.
Tumors aren't evolution, they are a mistake. Unfunctioning appendages - faults in the genes (blueprints). Personality defects - bad programming.

Our body is a self repairing machine that is fueled by food, water and air. We have access to the controls, but not the developer's kit (and I'm NOT implying there WAS a developer), at least not yet and not directly.

If we constructed a machine that is capable of independent though, forming new memories and experiences, how would they not be equal to us? Just because you say so?

It would not be equal by virtue that it was constructed, and everything that being constructed entails which separates the construct from a living greatre that has grown organically, and was born

though Im not sure what you mean by equal

Do remember
this entire argument where everyone is offended by me and must give their all in detailing just how awful a bigot I am started
because I said I would not feel sad for a robot being destroyed, as I do not believe their 'pain' is a real experience

When you talk equality youre getting into ares of rights and treatment and things of that nature and this whole mess turns political
when my stance was not a political one at all

Just keep that in mind

I would argue that we HAVE to include this side of things - this is a multi-faceted issue. I simply don't think that if an intelligence is constructed, if that intelligence is "alive", that they shouldn't be viewed as a person.

Imagine synthetic compound that can "grow" by having mass added and reshaped. Or heck, a program able to do the same in its algorythm. Your separation between grown/constructed may become really muddy in a couple centuries.

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

I got a really interesting question to ask you. If these robots were ever to exist in the future and had all these capabilities such as feeling emotion, pain, etc., and someone were to destroy one of these robots, should that person be sent to prison for murder? Or do you think it would be on the same level as animal cruelty? Or nobody is going to do anything since people would think of these robots having as much value as an expensive tv or toaster and not actually having any real biological application to life.

'had all these capabilities such as feeling emotion, pain, etc'

But that's just it
I don't believe that they do

If I were to assume otherwise, even for argument's sake, then everything Im saying is turned on it's head right from the get-go

It would just be an emulation of human characteristics, not actual human characteristics. There will never be such thing as creating the perfect AI that has every single human quality. Perfection is an illusion.

Right but that's my problem
I cant bring myself to feel for an emulator

same here

I'll leave it to you then. Good luck!

Since humans aren't perfect either, why couldn't that what makes us "us" be copied and executed? Everything that ever happened could be described by a mathematical formula with enough computational power. Human emotions, memories etc can be described in a similar way, unless you think that there is something that makes us special, like a soul or something similar.

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.

If the machine really had independent thought, ten I would put it on the same level as murder.

What would actually happen is debatable. How society would react would be dependent on how widespread these robots were, how many people interact with them on a daily basis, etc. It wouldn't matter if they were actually people, but if they were considered people.

What really strikes me as odd in these types of comics/literature etc., is why the sentient machines (when they are specifically stated to be sentient) don't protest or try to reason with humans, convince them that they are just as alive as them. They all seem so nihilistic, its really weird.

Now, are you just saying that because they look like humans?

What if they were designed to look like a cockroach and someone decided to smash it then.

I'm not. They could be a block of metal with a digital display for all I care, my argument is the same.
And designing an intelligence to be housed in a chassis of a cockroach sounds like a pretty stupid idea.

Well its important to know how artificial intelligence is designed. I agree it would be stupid to create something intelligent in the shape of a cockroach but I chose that example on purpose. It would also be incredibly stupid to design it to look like a human as well. Anyways, the reason why I chose that example is because if this comic was someone smashing a cockroach that had the artificial intelligence of a human you probably wouldn't care as much. However, you claimed that even if the artificial intelligence was stored in a metal cube with a display would have just as much value as a human life. It makes me wonder if your priorities are in order.

If it is, essentially, human-level intelligence, why not value it as such and why not classify its loss the same? Humans can be relatively cheaply reproduced, after all, it just takes some time. There is nothing to suggest that "living" ai wouldn't take some time to form and expand, so smashing a box or a bug body with such would waste the time and energy consumed in making it, waste its potential to do or think and leave behind a useless shell.

Now, what does murder essentially do? It wastes the time and energy consumed in making thet human grow, wastes their potential to do or think about something and leaves behind a useless corpse.
I'm leaving out emotional bonds for the sake of the argument. And who's to say machines can't have friends, just look at computers today, which are very much non-sentient.

I think you are missing the biggest point when it comes to wasting time and energy. What would be the point of creating something with artificial intelligence that can feel pain, emotions, and all these human qualities, blah, blah, it's all a complete waste. Why not just create the robot to think objectively 24/7 and have it's purpose to conduct scientific research. Anyways, that's a bit off topic.

In the heat of the moment when a building is on fire and you have a choice between saving a real human, or a metal cube with a display that has artificial human intelligence, who are you going to choose?

Also, I just kind of want to throw this in, technology gets outdated all the time. We used to use walkmans to listen to music and now people use iphones or android phones. Sure you can use a walkman today but it's not going to be as efficient; it's outdated technology. Eventually, certain models of artificial intelligence would get outdated and it would cost resources to maintain them. I don't think it would be cost efficient to maintain if it's just sitting there collecting dust. Sure you can compare lazy people to outdated artificial intelligence but the thing is, a lazy person is going to have more value because it's an actual human and not something a programmer made and then copied and pasted into thousands of other metal cubes with displays.

The burning building is an appeal to emotion, and it would come down to whether I liked the actual human enough, or not. If those were two people, I'd choose the one I know the best, that's how we work.

It seems to me that you think an actual ai would be something simple to make and distribute, like copying a simple application. Please remember that the human brain has more memory than any computer we can currently make and its architecture is pretty damn complex.

That is also why your argument doesn't make sense - crushing the cockroach would be more akin to destroying a supercomputer, rather than smashing an iphone.

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-

insulting me instead of the arguement is a fallacy and makes you seem a prick. im providing an arguement either debate it. if you wanna throw personal insults go to 4chan with all the other 13 year olds

And now the crying begins

they arent people but they will be alive eventually.

and i ask you to come up with a definition for life that only encompasses your beleifs.

"life is anything with free thought" - bacteria is not lfie then. and an AI that makes its on decisions is now life

"life is something which self replicates/reproduces" machines can and do self replicate and even self improve. so that makes even modern machiens classed as living

unless you go for the "living things have souls" its pretty hard to denounce AI as living.

and really we're not struggling here every argument youve given has been put down. your choice to ignore those answers doesnt make us wrong nor does it make you right

you said life evolves - machines evolve.
you said life can die - so can machines
you said life requires nutrition and food - machines require sustenance aswell just not in the same way as us
you say life is about how youre decended from previous humans- considering everything came from something that would make all things classed as life- the only thing produced from nothing is the universe itself.

when the technology gets there AI will think feel and act independently and you could argue directly to the machine why its not living and it can argue back. and it will likely be smarter than you by far. not insulting you its just that AI would likely have better processing power than a human

but please give youre definition of life.

No they wont

Machines do not evolve, you only want to call their upgrade process an evolution, which is your semantic decision, and your problem
I call Pork the flesh of the gods, this does not make it so, as pork is the flesh of pigs

Machines do not require sustenance, they require energy, and occasionally maintenance. They do not require nutrition, and they do not grow. They exist as they are built and only through external modification can they change and "evolve"
You cannot feed a robot electric computer dust and have it work out and gain piston-mass or something
They are static constructs, not living beings
Not organic life

And all AI is going to do for them is, at the very best, give them organic minds
They still aren't people, and it will still be a matter of debate as to wether or not they are alive

But right now they aren't

Life: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."

yes they well as i said computers have designed their own repalcements so much that the scientists who started it no longer understand how the latest one works. its beyond their capabiltiy to understand.

the brain is a computer, its an organic computer which gives you all the things which you call "being alive". it produces all your emotion all the memories all your decisions are made by this computer.
a computer of equal complexity would do the same for a robot and that robot would feel just as alive as you. different yes but alive. its not gonna be a human. its not gonna be life in the traditional sense. but alive none the less. if it thinks and feels and endeavours to survive and thrive its doing everything life is meant to do.

organic matter is a collection of inorganic matter. your body is made from elements that are all compeltely mifeless put into jsut the right way to make you alive. a AI machine would be a colelction of inorganic materials organised in jsut the right way to make it alive

evolution takes time yes but not with intelligent design. humans didnt have superior beings to make us thats why evolution took so long, but humans are intelligent and we are designing machines so we can make machines advance alot faster by designing them. no need for natural processes

AI would also grow. its abiltiy to learn would mean it advanced got smarter changed over time. it may learn to be a kind AI through its life or it may become corrupt and bad, it might decide it likes reggae music but later develops a taste for jazz. it will grow and change throughout its life.

functional activity? a machine would beat us at that. a machine will be faster smarter and stronger than us in function. where we have to excersise to get strong a machine can simply transfer its concousness into a stronger body. something which we may be able to do aswell one day with organic bodies

all you are is an organic machine. a different form of life. one which has risen from natural processes and which became what it is through reproduction

a machine AI will be a synthetic machine, anotehr form of life one which has come from intelligent design one which self replciates like bacteria. improving over each new replication. the machines which work and live will replicate the next generation those that dont function correctly will not replciate.

people now who say machine life is not possible were the same people who said flying is impossible, and then said a bomb that can level cities is impossible and then said leaving the atmospere is impossble. then said that a computer that can be operated by an everyday person is impossible. that machines smarter than humans were impossible. wrong every time.

No they wont
design is not evolution
evolution is not designed

the brain is a computer, but it isn't a machine
That's all there is to that, really

Intelligent design is a human thing, and in the world of living nature it doesnt exist
objects are intelligently designed
people are not


Organic material is still distinct from inorganic material
Something made from inorganic material which does not at some point become organic is not alive, organic matter is what turns inorganic matter into a living being

I am an organism, not a machine
machines are constructed and I was not
I was born and then I grew

yes a machine beats us at functional
That does not make it alive
better than human =/= human

Synthetic is the antithesis to Organic
That which is Synthetic is NOT Organic, and never will be

Machines are not living organisms, just as humans cannot fly
We built machines to fly in, and machines might emulate life
But they are not one and the same

a plane pilot is not, himself, a flying person
the plane is flying, he is being carried in it

So if something is made from organic matter, it's alive?
Make them from carbon fiber, simple as that.

carbon fiber isnt organic, but no that's not quite an accurate breakdown of what I said anyway

Except it is. It's a polymer, and therefore by definition it's organic.

can you harvest naturally grown carbon fiber
or do you have to produce it manually

That's not what organic means. Organic materials aren't some sort of magical thing, all organic compounds can be produced artificially. Have you not even taken middle school chemistry?

Well, I won't stop you from living in the 18th century if that's what you want to do.

tsk tsk

catty

because that's what 'person' means?

There are two definitions of evolution.
The first is "The process by which organic lifeforms developed over time"
and the other is "gradual development".
So, if we take out the organic lifeforms section, I can show that the first definition fits machinery in all other ways logically.

For evolution of lifeforms happened as small changes occurred in the lifeforms and those lifeforms succeeded and therefore could pass the improvements to later generations.

Now, to most people, those changes were due to random alterations in the genome. Assisted by various methods like non-pathogenesis. But to some these changes were the work of a god. This would mean that a god has tried small changes to the genome and allowed the alterations that improve to succeed. Whether or not it was controlled, evolution is the process of gradual change allowing some members of a niche to succeed over others.

Now that exact process occurs with machinery, organic lifeforms require air, water, sugar and nutrients/protiens/etc (the last one does not apply to all lifeforms, some lifeforms produce their own sugar but still require it to live), but machinery requires power, investiture & users. So as one type of a niche improves, it competes for these things. We use calculators because they improved their function over abacus' which allowed them to secure more investiture and users. This process mirrors evolution remarkably. Whether there was an intelligent being attempting to improve it is not entirely relevant, the process is duplicated almost exactly.
Machines experience evolution, on a different platform and for different resources but still evolution, design is not relevant to the process. Without design, machines (currently) could not experience it, but the process does occur.

Some people believe in intelligent design for organic beings, we do not dismiss them outright as that is their belief and their belief is protected as they are allowed to believe it. We, as a species, have decided that whether something experienced intelligent design does not detract from if it is alive.

We have organic computing, It's extremely basic but it does exist and will improve over time. And what if we had a perfect, virtualised, representation of a human brain? Atom for atom, it functions exactly the same as a real brain, would it have intelligence? For intelligence is indeed independent from life, you do not require one for the other, nor does one imply the other.

What you seek, in that case, is a form of composite intelligence compiled of self replicators, perhaps an "astrochicken" if you insist on organic components. There grow, these require a set of instructions which allow it to grow a complete body, repair it and allow the creation of a section of the body to experience intelligence and retain knowledge beyond the base instructions, which should logically be kept in every section. < That explanation of what they do could just as easily be applied to a human, but is mearly a more advanced reiteration of what you wrote in "I was boen and then I grew".

TO BE CONTINUED

CONTINUED

Beating us at functional activity is still evidence that they can perform functional activity, which you listed as a condition for life. My composite intelligence described before also fits the conditions of growth, reproduction and continual change preceding death, in this case via total destruction or control termination. Which are two ways in which humans die, but humans also die upon partial destruction.

What your final two points deal with, is actually incorrect in some not too obvious ways. machines currently emulate life, as they currently cannot be considered alive. Humans cannot currently fly in and of themselves, but our understanding of genetics is growing and with enough knowledge humans could fly, could breathe underwater, could see in more spectrum's than ever before, with enough knowledge, humans could do anything any animal could do and more. With enough knowledge, machines could be alive. At some point our knowledge will be great enough that biology and mechanics cannot be considered independent, machinery will have biological natures and biology must expand to incorporate this. Already biology has mechanical aspects as researchers begin mechanical interactions with organic life, such as the replacement of sensory information or interfacing machinery with nervous systems.

I got a really interesting question to ask you. If these robots were ever to exist in the future and had all these capabilities such as feeling emotion, pain, etc., and someone were to destroy one of these robots, should that person be sent to prison for murder? Or do you think it would be on the same level as animal cruelty? Or nobody is going to do anything since people would think of these robots having as much value as an expensive tv or toaster and not actually having any real biological application to life.

well. its a difficult question. id say yes, murder. but this wont be an issue that comes up often because AI will not be a widespread thing.

a living AI would be an experiment. i show of skill for humans. but AI is not useful to us, AI can make this own decisions it cant be told what to do it doesn't have to obey you and it can be volatile, this is what life is. machines which obey us and do the jobs they are designed for are not living but much more useful to us.

artificial life will be just as prone to disobedience, laziness, indecisiveness and emotion as biological life is. so I don't see it being mass made and therefore a big part of society. the idea that AI would be an every day thing would be silly. machines are made for a purpose. artificial life like life itself would have no purpose and would be useless beyond being a great feat of mankind

I think we can agree if artificial life were to be created in the future
1) It wouldn't be in the shape of a human,
2) It would most likely come with features that could be customized such as personality, emotions, etc.,
3) The AI would be akin to an operating system or game engine. Think of how game developers make games. Game developers use the same engine for creating games for many years until they need to catch up with technology. It wouldn't make any sense to create a new game engine for each game. AI will most likely be more complex than an operating system so it wouldn't make much sense to create unique AI (or operating system) for each piece of hardware. The AI would be created and the deviations from each other would be settings, the version of the firmware, and environment. Other than that AI would just be a copy pasta fest the same way Windows sells it's operating system.

Why do I mention these points? I feel like all these qualities will detract an AI from qualifying as an actual human but this is just speculation. In my opinion, no matter how sophisticated AI will become, even if it becomes superior to humans in every mental capacity, it's still just a piece of software and if someone were to destroy a piece of hardware containing this AI, it would be just the same as destroying a ps4 (obviously the hardware containing this AI would be more expensive than a ps4). Remember, at the end of the day if a programmer were to create AI and it had all these human qualities, it would be an illusion to think it's a human being. I'm not a religious person but I think it's important to consider life, actual consciousness, will always reside in humans and AI will just be an emulation of human characteristics. At the end of the day, it would be a programmer creating AI for money and destroying a piece of hardware containing AI would be the same as property damage and not murder. An AI with human characteristics is an illusion to think it's human. Only humans are humans.

I agree with 1- it wont look human, the human body is a mechanical nightmare, the programming and building involved to make a human like body would be ridiculous. for example a machine that moves as a human finger does alone requires several gear sets to move in the way a human finger does. a whole body would simply be impractical with the technology we have available.
MAYBE future technology allows us to create a synthetic brain which could be placed inside a human body. but thats entirely science fiction at the moment

id have to disagree with 2. if the AI's personality is editable. it wouldnt be life. an AI that is living would be one which grows of its own accord. which changes and develops through experiences and senses. the AI would start as a "baby" in that sense, but would develop and learn and it would self programme, like the human mind does. of course it would have basic settings there, the "sub concious" would be a pre-programmed part, same as ours, it would inherently know how to move, and operate its "body" if it had a body and how to behave. but its concious would be entirely raw, it would develop of its own accord. learning and developing as it grows.

as for 3. id say possibly. but i imagine that the things we will use to make artificial life are beyond what we yet imagine. the technology will be way different from what we use today. trying to imagine the tech for artificial life now, is like a person from the 30s trying to imagine the hadron collider.

realistically i think AI cant qualify for life because their is no solid criteria for what life is. there isnt a bunch of boxes that we can tick and say "yes this is life now" so its entirely personal choice, do you think it is life? whatever answer you give you're right and wrong at the same time. life isnt measurable, at what point does something become "living". this was an issue brought up well in the movie ex machina, you as the viewer could decide whether the machine was alive or not, but theres no right answer to whether she was or wasnt. her ability to persuade you shes alive is either proof shes living or its proof she is a well programmed machine.


and ive said this. im not saying AI will be HUMAN. AI will be its own form of lfie entirely. it will be based on human intellect and our design, but it wont be human. it will be alive though. think of artificial life as a new species. one nothing like biological life. biological life comes from evolution and artificial life is intelligent design. it would be different from us, very different. but it would be alive nonetheless.

As for the AI starting out in an infant stage would be pretty pointless imo. Even if the AI were to be programmed in an infant state it would still be an illusion to think it's akin to a human baby. I think this is really important to discuss and I know this argument is an appeal to emotion but if some random person had the choice of saving an infant ai or an actual human baby I'd hope that person would choose the human baby. Nothing what a programmer would make would compare or hold more value than an actual human life.

I think this is really important to stress and I can't stress this point enough, even if the AI was programmed to learn and grow and an extremely simple example is cleverbot, it would still be an illusion to think the AI is actually doing all of that. If cleverbot AI was shutdown and discarded it wouldn't be murder it would be the programmer moving on with his life. According to your definition, cleverbot meets your qualifications as a life form with conscious thinking. If cleverbot was shutdown you probably wouldn't care in the slightest and neither would I for good reason. You may try to argue that cleverbot isn't life because it was programmed for a specific purpose but when it comes down to it, cleverbot is thinking and it's learning albeit in a simple manner. If you don't think cleverbot is a life then you are already discriminating against the primitive AI! But the discrimination against the the primitive AI is an illusion! It isn't life because it was programmed. Anything artificially created isn't life not because it lacks human characteristics, but because at the end of the day, the AI will be created by some corporation trying to make money. The way you make it sound is the AI will be created by random joes simply because they want a "family". This is probably too far off in the future anyways, but it's extremely concerning and dangerous to think AI will be equal to a human life since it will come to the detriment of mankind.

I sincerely hope that never in the future that AI will NEVER be equal to a human or have greater worth than a human life. Humans > AI not Humans == AI

I'd think it's pretty obvious that one of two things would happen if sentient androids were to be made.

1. Heavy protests would begin to give them human rights (such as blacks in the 1900's in the US)
2. Fucking Skynet

No, you can buy the compounds
You cannot buy blood, organs, skin and bones very easily
Nor can you put them together and pafoomf, a living person!

Doesnt work that way

It is not possible to alter genes in a way to impact the person
You would have to alter the genes in ever single cell in the body

Do you know how many there are in a person?
trillions
And that "the technology will be available someday" does not make the argument
People and machines are not the same thing, regardless of if they could one some day

Food is more than fuel
Food contains nutrition, various chemicals that provide for auxiliary functions, and growth materials
Food contains too much, infact, as evidenced by us producing waste
Biology is imperfect by way of failures not proving detrimental to survival
machinery is imperfect only by error in design
Biology evolves
machinery must be updated or upgraded

Just as you say, there are machines that have designed better versions of themselves

That's an upgrade not an evolution

Machines are not people

yes gene alteration is impossible NOW, but we're getting there. eventually itll be possible. we went from bicycle pwoered planes to the moon in 50 years so the idea we can go from genome alteration to editting genes in the next century is not farfetched at all

again, the fact we cant replace parts like limbs yet will be resolved eventually. but that really makes machiens superior.
i mean the fact that a machine can easily replace all its component parts aswell as have free independant thought, emotion and feelings makes it superior to us. our bodies are easily damaged and hard to repair whereas this AI can easily fix itself. not only that it improves itself.

machines not producing waste is further proof they would be superior lifeforms. no need to waste, they require less nutrition and function efficiently

your problem is you cant come up with a description for what "life" is that wouldnt make AI machines also classed as life.

evolution is an upgrade. sharks skin is evolved/upgraded over each generation until it becomes very smooth and streamlined. the giraffes neck upgraded/evolved over generations until it became what we see today

the computer upgraded/evolved until it became what it is today. your genes produce the next generation with slight differences. machiens are made every day with differences.
like with genes some machines (designs) dont work aswell as others and the ones that work the best (the best evolved) survive and go on to be the basis of the next generation of computers

Doesnt matter if we're "getting there"
It still won't make us machines, or machines people, and it certainly isn't relevant to the current situation of machines not being people either

Superiority is also irrelevant
They aren't people, regardless of if they're better in any way

Because you see, my actual problem
Is that my not sympathizing with robots is for whatever reason upsetting to you and others, who struggle at length to try and compare, to finagle words and terms into some butchered misshapen semblance of a relative comparison

Im not even advocating for the mis-treatment of machines
I just feel no sympathy for their non-suffering
They do not feel
They are not people

I mean at first this was an interesting contrast but
It's getting thinner and thinner and Im struggling to understand why youre so desperate to insist on this, when you've got nothing

THAT's my problem

we are machines

definitoon of machine -an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.

our body is a collection of many many parts all working for a particular task thats the simplest definition of what a human is. we are a colelction of parts organs, blood protiens, amino acids, all working together

We are not machines
You are delusional

We are a collection of living organisms
We are grown and not constructed

What is growth, other than a type of self construction? The process needs materials, follows rigid rules, it can be influenced by outside forces and our own volition. If there is a big enough deviation, we are deemed faulty.
Tumors aren't evolution, they are a mistake. Unfunctioning appendages - faults in the genes (blueprints). Personality defects - bad programming.

Our body is a self repairing machine that is fueled by food, water and air. We have access to the controls, but not the developer's kit (and I'm NOT implying there WAS a developer), at least not yet and not directly.

If we constructed a machine that is capable of independent though, forming new memories and experiences, how would they not be equal to us? Just because you say so?

It would not be equal by virtue that it was constructed, and everything that being constructed entails which separates the construct from a living greatre that has grown organically, and was born

though Im not sure what you mean by equal

Do remember
this entire argument where everyone is offended by me and must give their all in detailing just how awful a bigot I am started
because I said I would not feel sad for a robot being destroyed, as I do not believe their 'pain' is a real experience

When you talk equality youre getting into ares of rights and treatment and things of that nature and this whole mess turns political
when my stance was not a political one at all

Just keep that in mind

I would argue that we HAVE to include this side of things - this is a multi-faceted issue. I simply don't think that if an intelligence is constructed, if that intelligence is "alive", that they shouldn't be viewed as a person.

Imagine synthetic compound that can "grow" by having mass added and reshaped. Or heck, a program able to do the same in its algorythm. Your separation between grown/constructed may become really muddy in a couple centuries.

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

I got a really interesting question to ask you. If these robots were ever to exist in the future and had all these capabilities such as feeling emotion, pain, etc., and someone were to destroy one of these robots, should that person be sent to prison for murder? Or do you think it would be on the same level as animal cruelty? Or nobody is going to do anything since people would think of these robots having as much value as an expensive tv or toaster and not actually having any real biological application to life.

'had all these capabilities such as feeling emotion, pain, etc'

But that's just it
I don't believe that they do

If I were to assume otherwise, even for argument's sake, then everything Im saying is turned on it's head right from the get-go

It would just be an emulation of human characteristics, not actual human characteristics. There will never be such thing as creating the perfect AI that has every single human quality. Perfection is an illusion.

Right but that's my problem
I cant bring myself to feel for an emulator

same here

I'll leave it to you then. Good luck!

Since humans aren't perfect either, why couldn't that what makes us "us" be copied and executed? Everything that ever happened could be described by a mathematical formula with enough computational power. Human emotions, memories etc can be described in a similar way, unless you think that there is something that makes us special, like a soul or something similar.

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.

If the machine really had independent thought, ten I would put it on the same level as murder.

What would actually happen is debatable. How society would react would be dependent on how widespread these robots were, how many people interact with them on a daily basis, etc. It wouldn't matter if they were actually people, but if they were considered people.

What really strikes me as odd in these types of comics/literature etc., is why the sentient machines (when they are specifically stated to be sentient) don't protest or try to reason with humans, convince them that they are just as alive as them. They all seem so nihilistic, its really weird.

Now, are you just saying that because they look like humans?

What if they were designed to look like a cockroach and someone decided to smash it then.

I'm not. They could be a block of metal with a digital display for all I care, my argument is the same.
And designing an intelligence to be housed in a chassis of a cockroach sounds like a pretty stupid idea.

Well its important to know how artificial intelligence is designed. I agree it would be stupid to create something intelligent in the shape of a cockroach but I chose that example on purpose. It would also be incredibly stupid to design it to look like a human as well. Anyways, the reason why I chose that example is because if this comic was someone smashing a cockroach that had the artificial intelligence of a human you probably wouldn't care as much. However, you claimed that even if the artificial intelligence was stored in a metal cube with a display would have just as much value as a human life. It makes me wonder if your priorities are in order.

If it is, essentially, human-level intelligence, why not value it as such and why not classify its loss the same? Humans can be relatively cheaply reproduced, after all, it just takes some time. There is nothing to suggest that "living" ai wouldn't take some time to form and expand, so smashing a box or a bug body with such would waste the time and energy consumed in making it, waste its potential to do or think and leave behind a useless shell.

Now, what does murder essentially do? It wastes the time and energy consumed in making thet human grow, wastes their potential to do or think about something and leaves behind a useless corpse.
I'm leaving out emotional bonds for the sake of the argument. And who's to say machines can't have friends, just look at computers today, which are very much non-sentient.

I think you are missing the biggest point when it comes to wasting time and energy. What would be the point of creating something with artificial intelligence that can feel pain, emotions, and all these human qualities, blah, blah, it's all a complete waste. Why not just create the robot to think objectively 24/7 and have it's purpose to conduct scientific research. Anyways, that's a bit off topic.

In the heat of the moment when a building is on fire and you have a choice between saving a real human, or a metal cube with a display that has artificial human intelligence, who are you going to choose?

Also, I just kind of want to throw this in, technology gets outdated all the time. We used to use walkmans to listen to music and now people use iphones or android phones. Sure you can use a walkman today but it's not going to be as efficient; it's outdated technology. Eventually, certain models of artificial intelligence would get outdated and it would cost resources to maintain them. I don't think it would be cost efficient to maintain if it's just sitting there collecting dust. Sure you can compare lazy people to outdated artificial intelligence but the thing is, a lazy person is going to have more value because it's an actual human and not something a programmer made and then copied and pasted into thousands of other metal cubes with displays.

The burning building is an appeal to emotion, and it would come down to whether I liked the actual human enough, or not. If those were two people, I'd choose the one I know the best, that's how we work.

It seems to me that you think an actual ai would be something simple to make and distribute, like copying a simple application. Please remember that the human brain has more memory than any computer we can currently make and its architecture is pretty damn complex.

That is also why your argument doesn't make sense - crushing the cockroach would be more akin to destroying a supercomputer, rather than smashing an iphone.

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-

insulting me instead of the arguement is a fallacy and makes you seem a prick. im providing an arguement either debate it. if you wanna throw personal insults go to 4chan with all the other 13 year olds

And now the crying begins

they arent people but they will be alive eventually.

and i ask you to come up with a definition for life that only encompasses your beleifs.

"life is anything with free thought" - bacteria is not lfie then. and an AI that makes its on decisions is now life

"life is something which self replicates/reproduces" machines can and do self replicate and even self improve. so that makes even modern machiens classed as living

unless you go for the "living things have souls" its pretty hard to denounce AI as living.

and really we're not struggling here every argument youve given has been put down. your choice to ignore those answers doesnt make us wrong nor does it make you right

you said life evolves - machines evolve.
you said life can die - so can machines
you said life requires nutrition and food - machines require sustenance aswell just not in the same way as us
you say life is about how youre decended from previous humans- considering everything came from something that would make all things classed as life- the only thing produced from nothing is the universe itself.

when the technology gets there AI will think feel and act independently and you could argue directly to the machine why its not living and it can argue back. and it will likely be smarter than you by far. not insulting you its just that AI would likely have better processing power than a human

but please give youre definition of life.

No they wont

Machines do not evolve, you only want to call their upgrade process an evolution, which is your semantic decision, and your problem
I call Pork the flesh of the gods, this does not make it so, as pork is the flesh of pigs

Machines do not require sustenance, they require energy, and occasionally maintenance. They do not require nutrition, and they do not grow. They exist as they are built and only through external modification can they change and "evolve"
You cannot feed a robot electric computer dust and have it work out and gain piston-mass or something
They are static constructs, not living beings
Not organic life

And all AI is going to do for them is, at the very best, give them organic minds
They still aren't people, and it will still be a matter of debate as to wether or not they are alive

But right now they aren't

Life: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."

yes they well as i said computers have designed their own repalcements so much that the scientists who started it no longer understand how the latest one works. its beyond their capabiltiy to understand.

the brain is a computer, its an organic computer which gives you all the things which you call "being alive". it produces all your emotion all the memories all your decisions are made by this computer.
a computer of equal complexity would do the same for a robot and that robot would feel just as alive as you. different yes but alive. its not gonna be a human. its not gonna be life in the traditional sense. but alive none the less. if it thinks and feels and endeavours to survive and thrive its doing everything life is meant to do.

organic matter is a collection of inorganic matter. your body is made from elements that are all compeltely mifeless put into jsut the right way to make you alive. a AI machine would be a colelction of inorganic materials organised in jsut the right way to make it alive

evolution takes time yes but not with intelligent design. humans didnt have superior beings to make us thats why evolution took so long, but humans are intelligent and we are designing machines so we can make machines advance alot faster by designing them. no need for natural processes

AI would also grow. its abiltiy to learn would mean it advanced got smarter changed over time. it may learn to be a kind AI through its life or it may become corrupt and bad, it might decide it likes reggae music but later develops a taste for jazz. it will grow and change throughout its life.

functional activity? a machine would beat us at that. a machine will be faster smarter and stronger than us in function. where we have to excersise to get strong a machine can simply transfer its concousness into a stronger body. something which we may be able to do aswell one day with organic bodies

all you are is an organic machine. a different form of life. one which has risen from natural processes and which became what it is through reproduction

a machine AI will be a synthetic machine, anotehr form of life one which has come from intelligent design one which self replciates like bacteria. improving over each new replication. the machines which work and live will replicate the next generation those that dont function correctly will not replciate.

people now who say machine life is not possible were the same people who said flying is impossible, and then said a bomb that can level cities is impossible and then said leaving the atmospere is impossble. then said that a computer that can be operated by an everyday person is impossible. that machines smarter than humans were impossible. wrong every time.

No they wont
design is not evolution
evolution is not designed

the brain is a computer, but it isn't a machine
That's all there is to that, really

Intelligent design is a human thing, and in the world of living nature it doesnt exist
objects are intelligently designed
people are not


Organic material is still distinct from inorganic material
Something made from inorganic material which does not at some point become organic is not alive, organic matter is what turns inorganic matter into a living being

I am an organism, not a machine
machines are constructed and I was not
I was born and then I grew

yes a machine beats us at functional
That does not make it alive
better than human =/= human

Synthetic is the antithesis to Organic
That which is Synthetic is NOT Organic, and never will be

Machines are not living organisms, just as humans cannot fly
We built machines to fly in, and machines might emulate life
But they are not one and the same

a plane pilot is not, himself, a flying person
the plane is flying, he is being carried in it

So if something is made from organic matter, it's alive?
Make them from carbon fiber, simple as that.

carbon fiber isnt organic, but no that's not quite an accurate breakdown of what I said anyway

Except it is. It's a polymer, and therefore by definition it's organic.

can you harvest naturally grown carbon fiber
or do you have to produce it manually

That's not what organic means. Organic materials aren't some sort of magical thing, all organic compounds can be produced artificially. Have you not even taken middle school chemistry?

Well, I won't stop you from living in the 18th century if that's what you want to do.

tsk tsk

catty

because that's what 'person' means?

There are two definitions of evolution.
The first is "The process by which organic lifeforms developed over time"
and the other is "gradual development".
So, if we take out the organic lifeforms section, I can show that the first definition fits machinery in all other ways logically.

For evolution of lifeforms happened as small changes occurred in the lifeforms and those lifeforms succeeded and therefore could pass the improvements to later generations.

Now, to most people, those changes were due to random alterations in the genome. Assisted by various methods like non-pathogenesis. But to some these changes were the work of a god. This would mean that a god has tried small changes to the genome and allowed the alterations that improve to succeed. Whether or not it was controlled, evolution is the process of gradual change allowing some members of a niche to succeed over others.

Now that exact process occurs with machinery, organic lifeforms require air, water, sugar and nutrients/protiens/etc (the last one does not apply to all lifeforms, some lifeforms produce their own sugar but still require it to live), but machinery requires power, investiture & users. So as one type of a niche improves, it competes for these things. We use calculators because they improved their function over abacus' which allowed them to secure more investiture and users. This process mirrors evolution remarkably. Whether there was an intelligent being attempting to improve it is not entirely relevant, the process is duplicated almost exactly.
Machines experience evolution, on a different platform and for different resources but still evolution, design is not relevant to the process. Without design, machines (currently) could not experience it, but the process does occur.

Some people believe in intelligent design for organic beings, we do not dismiss them outright as that is their belief and their belief is protected as they are allowed to believe it. We, as a species, have decided that whether something experienced intelligent design does not detract from if it is alive.

We have organic computing, It's extremely basic but it does exist and will improve over time. And what if we had a perfect, virtualised, representation of a human brain? Atom for atom, it functions exactly the same as a real brain, would it have intelligence? For intelligence is indeed independent from life, you do not require one for the other, nor does one imply the other.

What you seek, in that case, is a form of composite intelligence compiled of self replicators, perhaps an "astrochicken" if you insist on organic components. There grow, these require a set of instructions which allow it to grow a complete body, repair it and allow the creation of a section of the body to experience intelligence and retain knowledge beyond the base instructions, which should logically be kept in every section. < That explanation of what they do could just as easily be applied to a human, but is mearly a more advanced reiteration of what you wrote in "I was boen and then I grew".

TO BE CONTINUED

CONTINUED

Beating us at functional activity is still evidence that they can perform functional activity, which you listed as a condition for life. My composite intelligence described before also fits the conditions of growth, reproduction and continual change preceding death, in this case via total destruction or control termination. Which are two ways in which humans die, but humans also die upon partial destruction.

What your final two points deal with, is actually incorrect in some not too obvious ways. machines currently emulate life, as they currently cannot be considered alive. Humans cannot currently fly in and of themselves, but our understanding of genetics is growing and with enough knowledge humans could fly, could breathe underwater, could see in more spectrum's than ever before, with enough knowledge, humans could do anything any animal could do and more. With enough knowledge, machines could be alive. At some point our knowledge will be great enough that biology and mechanics cannot be considered independent, machinery will have biological natures and biology must expand to incorporate this. Already biology has mechanical aspects as researchers begin mechanical interactions with organic life, such as the replacement of sensory information or interfacing machinery with nervous systems.

No I dont agree
I mean youre right but I dont agree that this makes us the same

I was not constructed, built from parts which can be bought in bulk
If you shut me down you cannot restart me, that's it Im dead
I grow old and die
I need to eat food and produce waste
I am descended from a long line of humans and even proto-humans

A machine has none of these
These aren't "superior" characterstics specifically, but they provide a very clear gulf between machines and organic creatures

Robots dont have genes and you can alter their programming
you cannot alter the DNA of an adult person

treat it well sure
I'd do that too
But I won't ever believe it really has feelings

That's the core of what Ive been saying and what got everyone here so ass-pained that they had to go off on big fat rants about how awful I am and how robots are totally just like people in every way and people are only machines anyway and blah blah blah blah blah

Robots are constructed
People are not

That's basically it

actually all the elements in the human body are entirely purchasable. iron, protien, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen. so yes you can by the building blocks of the human body easily

if you kill someone they cant be brought back jsut like if you destroy a machine it cant always be fixed. but you can injure a machine and repair it possibly just like with a human

machines dont also grow old and die? do all machines work forever? components get worn out, internal parts fail and ultiamtely the machine fails.

food is simply fuel for your body, machines also require fuel jsut not the same as us.

there are machines which have already designed better versions of themselves which have designed better versiosn etc. each becoming better than the previous. and machines in general have improved and evolved. poor designs are scrapped good designs have been refined and perfected. the difference here is machiens are much quicker at advancing, we rely on biological evolution which takes millions of years. machines capable of free thought can easily redesign themselves to be stronger, faster, smarter and ultimately better than us.

genes cant be altered yet but it is entirely possible to do that. we jsut havent reached that level of technology yet. we can already edit genomes to produce certain genetic traits. in japan recently they produced a dog with extra muscle growth. we've made rats which grow ears on their backs. gene editting is not science fiction its gonna become much easier soon. we're doing things now that were thought impossible 10 years ago.

I got a really interesting question to ask you. If these robots were ever to exist in the future and had all these capabilities such as feeling emotion, pain, etc., and someone were to destroy one of these robots, should that person be sent to prison for murder? Or do you think it would be on the same level as animal cruelty? Or nobody is going to do anything since people would think of these robots having as much value as an expensive tv or toaster and not actually having any real biological application to life.

well. its a difficult question. id say yes, murder. but this wont be an issue that comes up often because AI will not be a widespread thing.

a living AI would be an experiment. i show of skill for humans. but AI is not useful to us, AI can make this own decisions it cant be told what to do it doesn't have to obey you and it can be volatile, this is what life is. machines which obey us and do the jobs they are designed for are not living but much more useful to us.

artificial life will be just as prone to disobedience, laziness, indecisiveness and emotion as biological life is. so I don't see it being mass made and therefore a big part of society. the idea that AI would be an every day thing would be silly. machines are made for a purpose. artificial life like life itself would have no purpose and would be useless beyond being a great feat of mankind

I think we can agree if artificial life were to be created in the future
1) It wouldn't be in the shape of a human,
2) It would most likely come with features that could be customized such as personality, emotions, etc.,
3) The AI would be akin to an operating system or game engine. Think of how game developers make games. Game developers use the same engine for creating games for many years until they need to catch up with technology. It wouldn't make any sense to create a new game engine for each game. AI will most likely be more complex than an operating system so it wouldn't make much sense to create unique AI (or operating system) for each piece of hardware. The AI would be created and the deviations from each other would be settings, the version of the firmware, and environment. Other than that AI would just be a copy pasta fest the same way Windows sells it's operating system.

Why do I mention these points? I feel like all these qualities will detract an AI from qualifying as an actual human but this is just speculation. In my opinion, no matter how sophisticated AI will become, even if it becomes superior to humans in every mental capacity, it's still just a piece of software and if someone were to destroy a piece of hardware containing this AI, it would be just the same as destroying a ps4 (obviously the hardware containing this AI would be more expensive than a ps4). Remember, at the end of the day if a programmer were to create AI and it had all these human qualities, it would be an illusion to think it's a human being. I'm not a religious person but I think it's important to consider life, actual consciousness, will always reside in humans and AI will just be an emulation of human characteristics. At the end of the day, it would be a programmer creating AI for money and destroying a piece of hardware containing AI would be the same as property damage and not murder. An AI with human characteristics is an illusion to think it's human. Only humans are humans.

I agree with 1- it wont look human, the human body is a mechanical nightmare, the programming and building involved to make a human like body would be ridiculous. for example a machine that moves as a human finger does alone requires several gear sets to move in the way a human finger does. a whole body would simply be impractical with the technology we have available.
MAYBE future technology allows us to create a synthetic brain which could be placed inside a human body. but thats entirely science fiction at the moment

id have to disagree with 2. if the AI's personality is editable. it wouldnt be life. an AI that is living would be one which grows of its own accord. which changes and develops through experiences and senses. the AI would start as a "baby" in that sense, but would develop and learn and it would self programme, like the human mind does. of course it would have basic settings there, the "sub concious" would be a pre-programmed part, same as ours, it would inherently know how to move, and operate its "body" if it had a body and how to behave. but its concious would be entirely raw, it would develop of its own accord. learning and developing as it grows.

as for 3. id say possibly. but i imagine that the things we will use to make artificial life are beyond what we yet imagine. the technology will be way different from what we use today. trying to imagine the tech for artificial life now, is like a person from the 30s trying to imagine the hadron collider.

realistically i think AI cant qualify for life because their is no solid criteria for what life is. there isnt a bunch of boxes that we can tick and say "yes this is life now" so its entirely personal choice, do you think it is life? whatever answer you give you're right and wrong at the same time. life isnt measurable, at what point does something become "living". this was an issue brought up well in the movie ex machina, you as the viewer could decide whether the machine was alive or not, but theres no right answer to whether she was or wasnt. her ability to persuade you shes alive is either proof shes living or its proof she is a well programmed machine.


and ive said this. im not saying AI will be HUMAN. AI will be its own form of lfie entirely. it will be based on human intellect and our design, but it wont be human. it will be alive though. think of artificial life as a new species. one nothing like biological life. biological life comes from evolution and artificial life is intelligent design. it would be different from us, very different. but it would be alive nonetheless.

As for the AI starting out in an infant stage would be pretty pointless imo. Even if the AI were to be programmed in an infant state it would still be an illusion to think it's akin to a human baby. I think this is really important to discuss and I know this argument is an appeal to emotion but if some random person had the choice of saving an infant ai or an actual human baby I'd hope that person would choose the human baby. Nothing what a programmer would make would compare or hold more value than an actual human life.

I think this is really important to stress and I can't stress this point enough, even if the AI was programmed to learn and grow and an extremely simple example is cleverbot, it would still be an illusion to think the AI is actually doing all of that. If cleverbot AI was shutdown and discarded it wouldn't be murder it would be the programmer moving on with his life. According to your definition, cleverbot meets your qualifications as a life form with conscious thinking. If cleverbot was shutdown you probably wouldn't care in the slightest and neither would I for good reason. You may try to argue that cleverbot isn't life because it was programmed for a specific purpose but when it comes down to it, cleverbot is thinking and it's learning albeit in a simple manner. If you don't think cleverbot is a life then you are already discriminating against the primitive AI! But the discrimination against the the primitive AI is an illusion! It isn't life because it was programmed. Anything artificially created isn't life not because it lacks human characteristics, but because at the end of the day, the AI will be created by some corporation trying to make money. The way you make it sound is the AI will be created by random joes simply because they want a "family". This is probably too far off in the future anyways, but it's extremely concerning and dangerous to think AI will be equal to a human life since it will come to the detriment of mankind.

I sincerely hope that never in the future that AI will NEVER be equal to a human or have greater worth than a human life. Humans > AI not Humans == AI

I'd think it's pretty obvious that one of two things would happen if sentient androids were to be made.

1. Heavy protests would begin to give them human rights (such as blacks in the 1900's in the US)
2. Fucking Skynet

No, you can buy the compounds
You cannot buy blood, organs, skin and bones very easily
Nor can you put them together and pafoomf, a living person!

Doesnt work that way

It is not possible to alter genes in a way to impact the person
You would have to alter the genes in ever single cell in the body

Do you know how many there are in a person?
trillions
And that "the technology will be available someday" does not make the argument
People and machines are not the same thing, regardless of if they could one some day

Food is more than fuel
Food contains nutrition, various chemicals that provide for auxiliary functions, and growth materials
Food contains too much, infact, as evidenced by us producing waste
Biology is imperfect by way of failures not proving detrimental to survival
machinery is imperfect only by error in design
Biology evolves
machinery must be updated or upgraded

Just as you say, there are machines that have designed better versions of themselves

That's an upgrade not an evolution

Machines are not people

yes gene alteration is impossible NOW, but we're getting there. eventually itll be possible. we went from bicycle pwoered planes to the moon in 50 years so the idea we can go from genome alteration to editting genes in the next century is not farfetched at all

again, the fact we cant replace parts like limbs yet will be resolved eventually. but that really makes machiens superior.
i mean the fact that a machine can easily replace all its component parts aswell as have free independant thought, emotion and feelings makes it superior to us. our bodies are easily damaged and hard to repair whereas this AI can easily fix itself. not only that it improves itself.

machines not producing waste is further proof they would be superior lifeforms. no need to waste, they require less nutrition and function efficiently

your problem is you cant come up with a description for what "life" is that wouldnt make AI machines also classed as life.

evolution is an upgrade. sharks skin is evolved/upgraded over each generation until it becomes very smooth and streamlined. the giraffes neck upgraded/evolved over generations until it became what we see today

the computer upgraded/evolved until it became what it is today. your genes produce the next generation with slight differences. machiens are made every day with differences.
like with genes some machines (designs) dont work aswell as others and the ones that work the best (the best evolved) survive and go on to be the basis of the next generation of computers

Doesnt matter if we're "getting there"
It still won't make us machines, or machines people, and it certainly isn't relevant to the current situation of machines not being people either

Superiority is also irrelevant
They aren't people, regardless of if they're better in any way

Because you see, my actual problem
Is that my not sympathizing with robots is for whatever reason upsetting to you and others, who struggle at length to try and compare, to finagle words and terms into some butchered misshapen semblance of a relative comparison

Im not even advocating for the mis-treatment of machines
I just feel no sympathy for their non-suffering
They do not feel
They are not people

I mean at first this was an interesting contrast but
It's getting thinner and thinner and Im struggling to understand why youre so desperate to insist on this, when you've got nothing

THAT's my problem

we are machines

definitoon of machine -an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.

our body is a collection of many many parts all working for a particular task thats the simplest definition of what a human is. we are a colelction of parts organs, blood protiens, amino acids, all working together

We are not machines
You are delusional

We are a collection of living organisms
We are grown and not constructed

What is growth, other than a type of self construction? The process needs materials, follows rigid rules, it can be influenced by outside forces and our own volition. If there is a big enough deviation, we are deemed faulty.
Tumors aren't evolution, they are a mistake. Unfunctioning appendages - faults in the genes (blueprints). Personality defects - bad programming.

Our body is a self repairing machine that is fueled by food, water and air. We have access to the controls, but not the developer's kit (and I'm NOT implying there WAS a developer), at least not yet and not directly.

If we constructed a machine that is capable of independent though, forming new memories and experiences, how would they not be equal to us? Just because you say so?

It would not be equal by virtue that it was constructed, and everything that being constructed entails which separates the construct from a living greatre that has grown organically, and was born

though Im not sure what you mean by equal

Do remember
this entire argument where everyone is offended by me and must give their all in detailing just how awful a bigot I am started
because I said I would not feel sad for a robot being destroyed, as I do not believe their 'pain' is a real experience

When you talk equality youre getting into ares of rights and treatment and things of that nature and this whole mess turns political
when my stance was not a political one at all

Just keep that in mind

I would argue that we HAVE to include this side of things - this is a multi-faceted issue. I simply don't think that if an intelligence is constructed, if that intelligence is "alive", that they shouldn't be viewed as a person.

Imagine synthetic compound that can "grow" by having mass added and reshaped. Or heck, a program able to do the same in its algorythm. Your separation between grown/constructed may become really muddy in a couple centuries.

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

I got a really interesting question to ask you. If these robots were ever to exist in the future and had all these capabilities such as feeling emotion, pain, etc., and someone were to destroy one of these robots, should that person be sent to prison for murder? Or do you think it would be on the same level as animal cruelty? Or nobody is going to do anything since people would think of these robots having as much value as an expensive tv or toaster and not actually having any real biological application to life.

'had all these capabilities such as feeling emotion, pain, etc'

But that's just it
I don't believe that they do

If I were to assume otherwise, even for argument's sake, then everything Im saying is turned on it's head right from the get-go

It would just be an emulation of human characteristics, not actual human characteristics. There will never be such thing as creating the perfect AI that has every single human quality. Perfection is an illusion.

Right but that's my problem
I cant bring myself to feel for an emulator

same here

I'll leave it to you then. Good luck!

Since humans aren't perfect either, why couldn't that what makes us "us" be copied and executed? Everything that ever happened could be described by a mathematical formula with enough computational power. Human emotions, memories etc can be described in a similar way, unless you think that there is something that makes us special, like a soul or something similar.

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.

If the machine really had independent thought, ten I would put it on the same level as murder.

What would actually happen is debatable. How society would react would be dependent on how widespread these robots were, how many people interact with them on a daily basis, etc. It wouldn't matter if they were actually people, but if they were considered people.

What really strikes me as odd in these types of comics/literature etc., is why the sentient machines (when they are specifically stated to be sentient) don't protest or try to reason with humans, convince them that they are just as alive as them. They all seem so nihilistic, its really weird.

Now, are you just saying that because they look like humans?

What if they were designed to look like a cockroach and someone decided to smash it then.

I'm not. They could be a block of metal with a digital display for all I care, my argument is the same.
And designing an intelligence to be housed in a chassis of a cockroach sounds like a pretty stupid idea.

Well its important to know how artificial intelligence is designed. I agree it would be stupid to create something intelligent in the shape of a cockroach but I chose that example on purpose. It would also be incredibly stupid to design it to look like a human as well. Anyways, the reason why I chose that example is because if this comic was someone smashing a cockroach that had the artificial intelligence of a human you probably wouldn't care as much. However, you claimed that even if the artificial intelligence was stored in a metal cube with a display would have just as much value as a human life. It makes me wonder if your priorities are in order.

If it is, essentially, human-level intelligence, why not value it as such and why not classify its loss the same? Humans can be relatively cheaply reproduced, after all, it just takes some time. There is nothing to suggest that "living" ai wouldn't take some time to form and expand, so smashing a box or a bug body with such would waste the time and energy consumed in making it, waste its potential to do or think and leave behind a useless shell.

Now, what does murder essentially do? It wastes the time and energy consumed in making thet human grow, wastes their potential to do or think about something and leaves behind a useless corpse.
I'm leaving out emotional bonds for the sake of the argument. And who's to say machines can't have friends, just look at computers today, which are very much non-sentient.

I think you are missing the biggest point when it comes to wasting time and energy. What would be the point of creating something with artificial intelligence that can feel pain, emotions, and all these human qualities, blah, blah, it's all a complete waste. Why not just create the robot to think objectively 24/7 and have it's purpose to conduct scientific research. Anyways, that's a bit off topic.

In the heat of the moment when a building is on fire and you have a choice between saving a real human, or a metal cube with a display that has artificial human intelligence, who are you going to choose?

Also, I just kind of want to throw this in, technology gets outdated all the time. We used to use walkmans to listen to music and now people use iphones or android phones. Sure you can use a walkman today but it's not going to be as efficient; it's outdated technology. Eventually, certain models of artificial intelligence would get outdated and it would cost resources to maintain them. I don't think it would be cost efficient to maintain if it's just sitting there collecting dust. Sure you can compare lazy people to outdated artificial intelligence but the thing is, a lazy person is going to have more value because it's an actual human and not something a programmer made and then copied and pasted into thousands of other metal cubes with displays.

The burning building is an appeal to emotion, and it would come down to whether I liked the actual human enough, or not. If those were two people, I'd choose the one I know the best, that's how we work.

It seems to me that you think an actual ai would be something simple to make and distribute, like copying a simple application. Please remember that the human brain has more memory than any computer we can currently make and its architecture is pretty damn complex.

That is also why your argument doesn't make sense - crushing the cockroach would be more akin to destroying a supercomputer, rather than smashing an iphone.

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-

insulting me instead of the arguement is a fallacy and makes you seem a prick. im providing an arguement either debate it. if you wanna throw personal insults go to 4chan with all the other 13 year olds

And now the crying begins

they arent people but they will be alive eventually.

and i ask you to come up with a definition for life that only encompasses your beleifs.

"life is anything with free thought" - bacteria is not lfie then. and an AI that makes its on decisions is now life

"life is something which self replicates/reproduces" machines can and do self replicate and even self improve. so that makes even modern machiens classed as living

unless you go for the "living things have souls" its pretty hard to denounce AI as living.

and really we're not struggling here every argument youve given has been put down. your choice to ignore those answers doesnt make us wrong nor does it make you right

you said life evolves - machines evolve.
you said life can die - so can machines
you said life requires nutrition and food - machines require sustenance aswell just not in the same way as us
you say life is about how youre decended from previous humans- considering everything came from something that would make all things classed as life- the only thing produced from nothing is the universe itself.

when the technology gets there AI will think feel and act independently and you could argue directly to the machine why its not living and it can argue back. and it will likely be smarter than you by far. not insulting you its just that AI would likely have better processing power than a human

but please give youre definition of life.

No they wont

Machines do not evolve, you only want to call their upgrade process an evolution, which is your semantic decision, and your problem
I call Pork the flesh of the gods, this does not make it so, as pork is the flesh of pigs

Machines do not require sustenance, they require energy, and occasionally maintenance. They do not require nutrition, and they do not grow. They exist as they are built and only through external modification can they change and "evolve"
You cannot feed a robot electric computer dust and have it work out and gain piston-mass or something
They are static constructs, not living beings
Not organic life

And all AI is going to do for them is, at the very best, give them organic minds
They still aren't people, and it will still be a matter of debate as to wether or not they are alive

But right now they aren't

Life: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."

yes they well as i said computers have designed their own repalcements so much that the scientists who started it no longer understand how the latest one works. its beyond their capabiltiy to understand.

the brain is a computer, its an organic computer which gives you all the things which you call "being alive". it produces all your emotion all the memories all your decisions are made by this computer.
a computer of equal complexity would do the same for a robot and that robot would feel just as alive as you. different yes but alive. its not gonna be a human. its not gonna be life in the traditional sense. but alive none the less. if it thinks and feels and endeavours to survive and thrive its doing everything life is meant to do.

organic matter is a collection of inorganic matter. your body is made from elements that are all compeltely mifeless put into jsut the right way to make you alive. a AI machine would be a colelction of inorganic materials organised in jsut the right way to make it alive

evolution takes time yes but not with intelligent design. humans didnt have superior beings to make us thats why evolution took so long, but humans are intelligent and we are designing machines so we can make machines advance alot faster by designing them. no need for natural processes

AI would also grow. its abiltiy to learn would mean it advanced got smarter changed over time. it may learn to be a kind AI through its life or it may become corrupt and bad, it might decide it likes reggae music but later develops a taste for jazz. it will grow and change throughout its life.

functional activity? a machine would beat us at that. a machine will be faster smarter and stronger than us in function. where we have to excersise to get strong a machine can simply transfer its concousness into a stronger body. something which we may be able to do aswell one day with organic bodies

all you are is an organic machine. a different form of life. one which has risen from natural processes and which became what it is through reproduction

a machine AI will be a synthetic machine, anotehr form of life one which has come from intelligent design one which self replciates like bacteria. improving over each new replication. the machines which work and live will replicate the next generation those that dont function correctly will not replciate.

people now who say machine life is not possible were the same people who said flying is impossible, and then said a bomb that can level cities is impossible and then said leaving the atmospere is impossble. then said that a computer that can be operated by an everyday person is impossible. that machines smarter than humans were impossible. wrong every time.

No they wont
design is not evolution
evolution is not designed

the brain is a computer, but it isn't a machine
That's all there is to that, really

Intelligent design is a human thing, and in the world of living nature it doesnt exist
objects are intelligently designed
people are not


Organic material is still distinct from inorganic material
Something made from inorganic material which does not at some point become organic is not alive, organic matter is what turns inorganic matter into a living being

I am an organism, not a machine
machines are constructed and I was not
I was born and then I grew

yes a machine beats us at functional
That does not make it alive
better than human =/= human

Synthetic is the antithesis to Organic
That which is Synthetic is NOT Organic, and never will be

Machines are not living organisms, just as humans cannot fly
We built machines to fly in, and machines might emulate life
But they are not one and the same

a plane pilot is not, himself, a flying person
the plane is flying, he is being carried in it

So if something is made from organic matter, it's alive?
Make them from carbon fiber, simple as that.

carbon fiber isnt organic, but no that's not quite an accurate breakdown of what I said anyway

Except it is. It's a polymer, and therefore by definition it's organic.

can you harvest naturally grown carbon fiber
or do you have to produce it manually

That's not what organic means. Organic materials aren't some sort of magical thing, all organic compounds can be produced artificially. Have you not even taken middle school chemistry?

Well, I won't stop you from living in the 18th century if that's what you want to do.

tsk tsk

catty

because that's what 'person' means?

There are two definitions of evolution.
The first is "The process by which organic lifeforms developed over time"
and the other is "gradual development".
So, if we take out the organic lifeforms section, I can show that the first definition fits machinery in all other ways logically.

For evolution of lifeforms happened as small changes occurred in the lifeforms and those lifeforms succeeded and therefore could pass the improvements to later generations.

Now, to most people, those changes were due to random alterations in the genome. Assisted by various methods like non-pathogenesis. But to some these changes were the work of a god. This would mean that a god has tried small changes to the genome and allowed the alterations that improve to succeed. Whether or not it was controlled, evolution is the process of gradual change allowing some members of a niche to succeed over others.

Now that exact process occurs with machinery, organic lifeforms require air, water, sugar and nutrients/protiens/etc (the last one does not apply to all lifeforms, some lifeforms produce their own sugar but still require it to live), but machinery requires power, investiture & users. So as one type of a niche improves, it competes for these things. We use calculators because they improved their function over abacus' which allowed them to secure more investiture and users. This process mirrors evolution remarkably. Whether there was an intelligent being attempting to improve it is not entirely relevant, the process is duplicated almost exactly.
Machines experience evolution, on a different platform and for different resources but still evolution, design is not relevant to the process. Without design, machines (currently) could not experience it, but the process does occur.

Some people believe in intelligent design for organic beings, we do not dismiss them outright as that is their belief and their belief is protected as they are allowed to believe it. We, as a species, have decided that whether something experienced intelligent design does not detract from if it is alive.

We have organic computing, It's extremely basic but it does exist and will improve over time. And what if we had a perfect, virtualised, representation of a human brain? Atom for atom, it functions exactly the same as a real brain, would it have intelligence? For intelligence is indeed independent from life, you do not require one for the other, nor does one imply the other.

What you seek, in that case, is a form of composite intelligence compiled of self replicators, perhaps an "astrochicken" if you insist on organic components. There grow, these require a set of instructions which allow it to grow a complete body, repair it and allow the creation of a section of the body to experience intelligence and retain knowledge beyond the base instructions, which should logically be kept in every section. < That explanation of what they do could just as easily be applied to a human, but is mearly a more advanced reiteration of what you wrote in "I was boen and then I grew".

TO BE CONTINUED

CONTINUED

Beating us at functional activity is still evidence that they can perform functional activity, which you listed as a condition for life. My composite intelligence described before also fits the conditions of growth, reproduction and continual change preceding death, in this case via total destruction or control termination. Which are two ways in which humans die, but humans also die upon partial destruction.

What your final two points deal with, is actually incorrect in some not too obvious ways. machines currently emulate life, as they currently cannot be considered alive. Humans cannot currently fly in and of themselves, but our understanding of genetics is growing and with enough knowledge humans could fly, could breathe underwater, could see in more spectrum's than ever before, with enough knowledge, humans could do anything any animal could do and more. With enough knowledge, machines could be alive. At some point our knowledge will be great enough that biology and mechanics cannot be considered independent, machinery will have biological natures and biology must expand to incorporate this. Already biology has mechanical aspects as researchers begin mechanical interactions with organic life, such as the replacement of sensory information or interfacing machinery with nervous systems.

it was about the EU/German stance in Ukraine and anti-Russia bills about energy.