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.
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. It can not even be remotely argued that AI is “12% of a person”. It’s a category difference. 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.
living organism of sufficient and demonstrable complexity characterized by homologation and similarity to the traits of the hominid self
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.
There’s also the huge question of how much complexity is ‘sufficient’…
I mean, sure, I’ll hope the definitions that are going about the metaphilosophy circles are clearer, I’m just mentioning a definition that seems to fall in line with the kinds of that we can readily use to measure personhood with our very limited arsenal and very limited sample size; in terms of species that have persons, we have been stuck at N=1 for the entirely of human history. “Baby’s first N=2” might be quite awesome if it ever happens, but unless we have deciphered the metaphysics of metaphilosophy (like, what a mind actually is, or being able to reproduce the biological processes that spawn sapience in a minimum viable example experiment), the only way we will be currently able to recognize the chance of personhood is if it is “human enough”: like-ours hands that enable tool use, like-ours language and expression that can serve as strata for a culture, like-ours means of suffering that can be palliated and can generate and teach empathy, like-ours amplitude of facial expression that allows for a reading of emotions.
With the definition given, AI is conveniently and clearly discarded, as are corporations. We already have enough issue with our legal systems treating corporations as if they were people, we certainly don’t need more.
Deluded statement of the week!
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.
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. It can not even be remotely argued that AI is “12% of a person”. It’s a category difference. 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.
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.
There’s also the huge question of how much complexity is ‘sufficient’…
I mean, sure, I’ll hope the definitions that are going about the metaphilosophy circles are clearer, I’m just mentioning a definition that seems to fall in line with the kinds of that we can readily use to measure personhood with our very limited arsenal and very limited sample size; in terms of species that have persons, we have been stuck at N=1 for the entirely of human history. “Baby’s first N=2” might be quite awesome if it ever happens, but unless we have deciphered the metaphysics of metaphilosophy (like, what a mind actually is, or being able to reproduce the biological processes that spawn sapience in a minimum viable example experiment), the only way we will be currently able to recognize the chance of personhood is if it is “human enough”: like-ours hands that enable tool use, like-ours language and expression that can serve as strata for a culture, like-ours means of suffering that can be palliated and can generate and teach empathy, like-ours amplitude of facial expression that allows for a reading of emotions.
With the definition given, AI is conveniently and clearly discarded, as are corporations. We already have enough issue with our legal systems treating corporations as if they were people, we certainly don’t need more.