Comment on furries in shambles
OwOarchist@pawb.social 6 days agoWhere the waters really get muddy is in deciding where to draw the line between ‘person’ and ‘not a person’ when it comes to AI.
Current AI is almost certainly not a person … but at some point, it seems almost inevitable that it will progress to the point where it crosses the line of personhood. Where do we draw that line? How will we know if an AI has crossed it? And how do we address the rights and responsibilities of an artificial person? Is it then unethical to turn it off or delete it? Should it have a say in government, be able to vote? Can you get married to it? Does it have a right to create copies of itself the way you have a right to have children? Can it own property? Can/should it be punished if it breaks laws, and how?
veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
Deluded statement of the week!
OwOarchist@pawb.social 4 days ago
Hey, man. I don’t make much effort to keep up with the bleeding edge of AI development, and I also don’t know exactly how to define a ‘person’. Cut me some slack.
veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
Fair point. But I’d say regardless of how much advancement is made in (realistic nowadays) AI, it will never even be close to being a person. Even given our lack of understanding of the meatphysics involved, we know at least enough about the world to come up with an empiric definition of “person” and I’d say the most viable interpretations (“living organism of sufficient and demonstrable complexity characterized by homologation and similarity to the traits of the hominid self”) readily discounts AI for the foreseeable future.
OwOarchist@pawb.social 4 days ago
No AI could ever qualify for that, no matter how advanced, because it’s not a ‘living organism’.
And you’d definitely want to be more clear about what ‘homologation’ means, because ‘similarity to the traits of the hominid self’ is very vague and it could potentially be argued that current AI already does that.