Out of curiosity, are you opposed to animal labor? I mean, I certainly find it a morally dubious concept. I'd be interested in how people think it relates to AI labor.
Depends. I know how it was done in the older days in the countryside where horses were more of family members than anything, since they were so valuable. It's more of symbiosis than actual parasitism, though if the animals are abused or their work can be easily (as in, without any major loss for anyone) done by something else and yet they are forced to do so, it's not okay. As for the AI - the problem is that the AI would be sapient in addition to sentience.
Human slaves are not hardcoded to do something. They're simply forced to do so because otherwise they'll get killed, or whipped, or starved. The AI is not exempt from this. Even if we forego manumission costs it will need maintenance
You can't really whip or starve an AI, so you hardcode it do something, and that's even worse.
I disagree that sentience is the only important benchmark for if it's okay to kill people. I believe something has to be sentient to actually have a moral issue, but that alone doesn't make it a moral issue. I think a lot of other things come into the equation, like self preservation, does the thing want to die? To perhaps state where I'm coming from, I'm perfectly okay with euthanizing someone that wants to die and don't see any moral issue or failing with it (although I'd bow to the reality that 'want to die' is currently very hard to determine for a human). I'm guessing that's just a fundamental disagreement we have? I'm not sure if that's possible to reconcile.
I understand that there are situations when killing is theoretically better, but it any case it shouldn't be regarded as good and morally acceptable thing. I am in support of euthanasia and such too, but I don't consider it a good thing in any way. I'd describe it as necessary (or rather, lesser) evil or something.
Secondly, it seems we've gotten to a important point, which is that I don't actually disagree with you? It seems like you're not okay killing an AI that is, for want of a better way to describe it, very human like and doesn't want to die and all that jazz, which I agree with! That would be wrong! Secondly you're not okay making an AI that is lacking all of that. I'm not going to say whether or not I disagree with that, but I will say that was the type of AI I was talking about when I was talking about it being okay to kill an AI. So, under your view of morality it's not okay to even be in a situation where I would view it okay to kill an AI, so there's not a moral issue between our views and unless I missed something I feel we've reconciled our views quite well.
I guess? I mean I wouldn't consider it an AI if it's literally uncapable of feeling emotions and whatnot and killing such thing would be basically like killing an mindless computer.
You guys are talking about the ETHICS of shutting it down? Like it's a person or something? You do all realize this is the exact sort of thing that allows Skynet scenarios to arise, right? If you can't pull the plug on AI with the same sort of ruthlessness you would crush ants with, then don't build AI.
No. If we were to get an Skynet, I would pull the plug without any problem, since the thing is a threat and survival of human race comes above everything else. The problem would be killing an AI for just saying Nazi bullshit (this is just an example, I don't consider Tay to be actually sentient) over internet beause it causes bad popularity for the creator of said AI. AI "life" would be worth less than human life, but it shouldn't be dirt cheap.
anger, hatred, and fear are emotions too :V
And those are perfectly good emotions. What's wrong with them?
NEW POST NEW POST FUCKING NEW POST NEW POST ARGHHHH