| Subject: Re: Any interest in a mildly philosophical discussion? |
Author:
Rayhana
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 2/01/03 3:03pm
In reply to:
Darkness
's message, "Any interest in a mildly philosophical discussion?" on 2/01/03 12:31pm
I don't consider them slaves anymore than I would consider a career military person a slave. Someone in the military is told where to live, how to dress, how to act, is given orders to follow, etc. They could be considered a slave of the government. Now, the difference is that this person has made a choice, in most cases, to be a part of the military where the AI had no choice. But yet, we have no choice to be born or not, that choice is made for us. So, are we slaves to our parents?
I think AI's are created with a specific purpose. Now, should they choose to no longer fullfill their purpose, many things can happen. But to me this is not different than a top level military person choosing to no longer fullfill their purpose. The AI can be erased, the military person killed. The AI can be re-programmed, the military person put in prison. The AI can be allowed to leave after critical info is deleted from their memory so they are no longer a threat. The military person can be given drugs to eliminate certain memories and allowed to move on.
I see what you are saying, but I'm not sure I would go so far as to say they are slaves. With regard to Andromeda, Rommie has choices. Now, I don't know if the CW gives all their AI's the choices Dylan gives Rommie.
But, all in all, I don't feel the AI's are any more a slave than the Captain they serve under.
>Hi! I'm new here. First of, I like your site. It's
>pretty cool and the fanfiction is good.
>
>I've been thinking about the concept of sentient A.I.
>warships lately and found it somehow disturbing. So if
>you have no interest in a discussion that probably
>falls into the philosophical realm, then please read
>no further, and forget this message ... :) ... on the
>other hand, if you are interested, here are my humble
>thoughts to this concept:
>
>.
>.
>.
>.
>
>My conclusion was, that through the restrictions
>imposed on those ships, they are in fact slaves (or at
>least in a comparable situation to that of a slave).
>
>First, we must assume the A.I. warships are sentient
>beings, just like the humans for example. Otherwise,
>they would only be tools (not a person) and therefore
>the term 'slave' could not be applied to them anyway.
>
>Second, the military (meaning you in further text)
>builds an A.I. warship, investing ressources,
>personnel and technology into it. The ressources alone
>create a substantial debt for the A.I. ship, that the
>ship practically 'owes' to the military. To get free
>of it, the ship could theoretically pay it off, but
>this is where the technology comes in. You can't just
>let this level of technology to roam free in the
>universe: two aspects: one, once free, the ship itself
>could pose a considerable threat to you, and two, if
>the ship is captured (temporarily or permanent), the
>technology would fall into third party hands, who may
>harbour some not so nice intentions toward you or
>other innocents.
>Therefore, you cannot allow an A.I. ship to simply
>become free (free as in personal freedom, freedom of
>choice, etc.).
>
>Third, the A.I. ship was built to fulfill a certain
>function, and therefore you want it to fulfill this
>function. Theoretically you could give it a leave just
>like you would do with normal soldiers, but that would
>not be very practical and pretty disruptive to your
>normal military operations.
>
>Fourth, assuming a wish of an A.I. to procreate (I
>think we can safely say such a wish is a part of the
>definition of the term 'sentient being'), any
>offspring that the A.I. would create, would have to
>underlie the same restrictions, regarding technology,
>as its parent (the ressource debt aspect can be
>ignored, if the parent has its own facilities to mine
>and process raw materials).
>
>One could argue that such ships were built with a
>specific function, and that any restrictions coming
>through that function are perfectly normal and
>justified. But, who gives the builders the right to
>say that the ships are only allowed to perform that
>function and nothing else? Why couldn't an A.I. be
>something more than just its intended function? Isn't
>that what a free sentient being does? It strives to
>become something more than it is, to be better, to
>find fulfillment.
>
>So in conclusion, if you (as military) build an A.I.
>warship AND call it a sentient being, then, in my
>opinion, you've created yourself a slave.
>
>What are your thoughts on this?
>
>
>Darkness
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 