Quote from: SecondClass on May 28, 2016, 03:53:01 AMQuote from: Zen on May 28, 2016, 03:43:24 AMQuote from: SecondClass on May 28, 2016, 02:47:57 AMPeople who want sexbots or whatever are even worse than the general advocates of this. It would be literal rape.Except a AI programed to be a sexbot would be literally coded for the purpose of providing sexual pleasure.Humans are coded for the exact same thing, fucking and having kids. But since we're a sentient, intelligent species, we have free agency and can break that coding. An AI is no different. If you're talking about a true AI, one that learns and is self aware, then it will start to develop an opinion of whether or not it enjoys being a sex slave to gross, desperate old men.If you want a sex robot, some human looking thing that's programmed to move in a certain way and say certain things in reaction to an input, then whatever. But this goes far beyond that.First off, everyone here needs to learn the difference between sentient and sapient. Being able to think abstractly and form opinions about scenarios is sapience. Second, even if it was able to form its own opinions, why should we afford something we created to serve us the same rights as us?
Quote from: Zen on May 28, 2016, 03:43:24 AMQuote from: SecondClass on May 28, 2016, 02:47:57 AMPeople who want sexbots or whatever are even worse than the general advocates of this. It would be literal rape.Except a AI programed to be a sexbot would be literally coded for the purpose of providing sexual pleasure.Humans are coded for the exact same thing, fucking and having kids. But since we're a sentient, intelligent species, we have free agency and can break that coding. An AI is no different. If you're talking about a true AI, one that learns and is self aware, then it will start to develop an opinion of whether or not it enjoys being a sex slave to gross, desperate old men.If you want a sex robot, some human looking thing that's programmed to move in a certain way and say certain things in reaction to an input, then whatever. But this goes far beyond that.
Quote from: SecondClass on May 28, 2016, 02:47:57 AMPeople who want sexbots or whatever are even worse than the general advocates of this. It would be literal rape.Except a AI programed to be a sexbot would be literally coded for the purpose of providing sexual pleasure.
People who want sexbots or whatever are even worse than the general advocates of this. It would be literal rape.
Quote from: SecondClass on May 27, 2016, 08:01:04 PMQuote from: challengerX on May 27, 2016, 06:05:53 PMQuote from: SecondClass on May 27, 2016, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: challengerX on May 27, 2016, 03:47:20 PMProbably, yes. I think the fears of an AI turning on us is not that justified.it's more about the fact that creating a new species for the sake of SCIENCE! is wronglol whatHow is creating AI wrong?You're imposing sentience and existence on a previously inanimate thing for the sake of scientific progress.>imposingI'm granting it sentience. That's a good thing.
Quote from: challengerX on May 27, 2016, 06:05:53 PMQuote from: SecondClass on May 27, 2016, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: challengerX on May 27, 2016, 03:47:20 PMProbably, yes. I think the fears of an AI turning on us is not that justified.it's more about the fact that creating a new species for the sake of SCIENCE! is wronglol whatHow is creating AI wrong?You're imposing sentience and existence on a previously inanimate thing for the sake of scientific progress.
Quote from: SecondClass on May 27, 2016, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: challengerX on May 27, 2016, 03:47:20 PMProbably, yes. I think the fears of an AI turning on us is not that justified.it's more about the fact that creating a new species for the sake of SCIENCE! is wronglol whatHow is creating AI wrong?
Quote from: challengerX on May 27, 2016, 03:47:20 PMProbably, yes. I think the fears of an AI turning on us is not that justified.it's more about the fact that creating a new species for the sake of SCIENCE! is wrong
Probably, yes. I think the fears of an AI turning on us is not that justified.
LOL Antinatalists"It's bad to create life even if artificial to advance humanity"No, no it isn't. Suffering is a part of life, get over it. That's just how the universe is.
Quote from: SecondClass on May 28, 2016, 04:17:31 AMQuote from: challengerX on May 28, 2016, 04:15:47 AMLOL Antinatalists"It's bad to create life even if artificial to advance humanity"No, no it isn't. Suffering is a part of life, get over it. That's just how the universe is.I'm not going to sit here and have a big argument about consent with you, but the fact that life neccesitates suffering doesn't give a reason for making new life, it gives a reason against it.Denying life to somebody is the ultimate crime, you never even give him/her/it the chance to experience it before "playing god" (or Satan more like) yourself and deco coding life is not worth living because you're clinically depressed.
Quote from: challengerX on May 28, 2016, 04:15:47 AMLOL Antinatalists"It's bad to create life even if artificial to advance humanity"No, no it isn't. Suffering is a part of life, get over it. That's just how the universe is.I'm not going to sit here and have a big argument about consent with you, but the fact that life neccesitates suffering doesn't give a reason for making new life, it gives a reason against it.
Quote from: SecondClass on May 28, 2016, 04:13:28 AMWe created it, but that doesn't mean a thing. Just because we're intellectually capable of creating new souls doesn't mean we're morally capable of enslaving them.Ah, arguing from morality, well spooked my property.QuoteNo, I'm talking about sentience. The ability to feel actual pain, emotions, and pleasure. Sapience goes without saying, it's an AI; of course it can think abstractly and make decisions. That's the point of this hypothetical creation, it can learn, think, and use logic like any human. That alone is enough to give it human rights, but when you add on sentience, it's even more deserving of them. Anything that can suffer has a moral consideration to it, let alone something that can think and knows that it exists.First off, unless we're giving these AI's the works with receptors on their bodies for pain and pleasure, they aren't going to think anything of those feelings. A sexbot AI without that would not feel anything from the person fucking them. Secondly, even if they do feel those emotions, so what? It doesn't change the fact that the AI was created for a specific purpose and if it doesn't fulfill that purpose, it's basically useless. Just saying, neither me nor you are doing anything to stop sweat shops that uses kids as a means of production and willingly use products from it. If AI hit the point of sapience and sentience, we'd turn the same blind eye with no sleep lost on our part.
We created it, but that doesn't mean a thing. Just because we're intellectually capable of creating new souls doesn't mean we're morally capable of enslaving them.
No, I'm talking about sentience. The ability to feel actual pain, emotions, and pleasure. Sapience goes without saying, it's an AI; of course it can think abstractly and make decisions. That's the point of this hypothetical creation, it can learn, think, and use logic like any human. That alone is enough to give it human rights, but when you add on sentience, it's even more deserving of them. Anything that can suffer has a moral consideration to it, let alone something that can think and knows that it exists.
Wait, so you antinatalist now too?
Also, morality and human rights are a spook, just saying.
Quote from: SecondClass on May 28, 2016, 04:47:24 AMIf I had the means, sure.Concepts and ideas exist. Just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it's not real.So, you would help one person if it meant subjecting 1000s of others to suffering?
If I had the means, sure.Concepts and ideas exist. Just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it's not real.
"Everything sucks""There's no point doing anything""I hope I die from all this oxycodone I'm taking"I hate to have to bring things like that up, but I'm not going to let you lie and masquerade this death cult as some sort of gathering of intellectuals.
No, it isn't. There are plenty of other factors which make morality such a grey area, not this black and white "let him drink bleach it doesn't affect you".
There is no such thing as burden without existence, so existence itself can not be the burden.
Living for no reason?Maybe you do, but I don't. Find a purpose.
Being brought into existence is a matter in which consent is irrelevant.
Quote from: SecondClass on May 28, 2016, 05:08:41 AMQuote from: Zen on May 28, 2016, 04:48:43 AMQuote from: SecondClass on May 28, 2016, 04:47:24 AMIf I had the means, sure.Concepts and ideas exist. Just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it's not real.So, you would help one person if it meant subjecting 1000s of others to suffering?What? How does the fact that I would help a kid escape from some sweatshop cause more suffering? the ones who walk away from omelas is a story about a utopian society is only able to keep its utopian state due to one child suffering.
Quote from: Zen on May 28, 2016, 04:48:43 AMQuote from: SecondClass on May 28, 2016, 04:47:24 AMIf I had the means, sure.Concepts and ideas exist. Just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it's not real.So, you would help one person if it meant subjecting 1000s of others to suffering?What? How does the fact that I would help a kid escape from some sweatshop cause more suffering?
Quote from: SecondClass on May 28, 2016, 04:17:31 AMQuote from: challengerX on May 28, 2016, 04:15:47 AMLOL Antinatalists"It's bad to create life even if artificial to advance humanity"No, no it isn't. Suffering is a part of life, get over it. That's just how the universe is.I'm not going to sit here and have a big argument about consent with you, but the fact that life neccesitates suffering doesn't give a reason for making new life, it gives a reason against it.Denying life to somebody is the ultimate crime, you never even give him/her/it the chance to experience it before "playing god" (or Satan more like) yourself and deciding life is not worth living because you're clinically depressed.
Quote from: Verbatim on May 28, 2016, 10:23:01 AMQuote from: challengerX on May 28, 2016, 04:19:51 AMQuote from: SecondClass on May 28, 2016, 04:17:31 AMQuote from: challengerX on May 28, 2016, 04:15:47 AMLOL Antinatalists"It's bad to create life even if artificial to advance humanity"No, no it isn't. Suffering is a part of life, get over it. That's just how the universe is.I'm not going to sit here and have a big argument about consent with you, but the fact that life neccesitates suffering doesn't give a reason for making new life, it gives a reason against it.Denying life to somebody is the ultimate crime, you never even give him/her/it the chance to experience it before "playing god" (or Satan more like) yourself and deciding life is not worth living because you're clinically depressed.yu really do have a four year old's understanding of anti-natalismYour death cult is childish, not my understanding of it.
Quote from: challengerX on May 28, 2016, 04:19:51 AMQuote from: SecondClass on May 28, 2016, 04:17:31 AMQuote from: challengerX on May 28, 2016, 04:15:47 AMLOL Antinatalists"It's bad to create life even if artificial to advance humanity"No, no it isn't. Suffering is a part of life, get over it. That's just how the universe is.I'm not going to sit here and have a big argument about consent with you, but the fact that life neccesitates suffering doesn't give a reason for making new life, it gives a reason against it.Denying life to somebody is the ultimate crime, you never even give him/her/it the chance to experience it before "playing god" (or Satan more like) yourself and deciding life is not worth living because you're clinically depressed.yu really do have a four year old's understanding of anti-natalism
EVERYTHING SHOULD CEASE TO EXIST BECAUSE LIFE ISN'T PERFECT AND PEOPLE SUFFERUnless we're mutilating infants' genitals, then it's fine because they won't remember it.
If you had the possibility of creating AI, would you?
