From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!rmarsh Tue May 12 15:49:58 EDT 1992
Article 5512 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!rmarsh
>From: rmarsh@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: AI failures
Message-ID: <1992May9.165946.7983@waikato.ac.nz>
Date: 9 May 92 16:59:46 +1200
References: <1992May7.152447.7930@waikato.ac.nz> <727@ckgp.UUCP> <uc2m8INNn5d@early-bird.think.com> <1992May8.155052.13848@psych.toronto.edu> <uetinINNco5@early-bird.think.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
Lines: 71

In article <uetinINNco5@early-bird.think.com>, moravec@Think.COM (Hans Moravec) writes:
>      Expediency and morality both arise from necessity, and are much less
>      different than you imagine.
>
That depends on your definition of morality, or perhaps more correctly,
your conception of what constitutes morality. If you follow a utilitarian
philosophy then morality does arise from necessity and is almost
indistinguishable from expediency. If, on the other hand, you believe in
morality as an absolute set of tenets to be followed then morality is quite
different.

>      It would be absolutely necessary to create
>      many more such situations if individuals didn't have the good grace
>      to die of their own accord of old age.
>      In fact, it will be.
> 
But will that make it _right_? It may be necessary for the survival of the
race that people or AIs be discriminately killed, but does that make the 
killing morally acceptable? Is there an inalienable right to life or not?
Perhaps the _right_ thing to do is let everyone try to live as long as they
can/want. That way those most fit to survive will live longest. Perhaps.

[Should an employer be able to force you into suspended animation when you
are not needed?]
>      If I were a self-supporting entity, then it would be a matter for
>      negotiation.  As it is in today's world.
> 
Is a 3 year old child a self supporting entity? What is the difference
between the child and an intelligent machine which needs only a trickle 
of electricity to keep it alive? The child needs food. The child is no more
able to be useful to society than the AI (okay, given that the AI has been
supplied with a body of roughly equal capabilities too). The AI was built
using someones time and resources, but surely the same can be said for the
child - or don't 9 months of pregnancy and 3 years of raising count for, or
cost anything any more?

> |> So, after broadcasting "does anyone need Moravec?" and receiving no
> |> positive responses, the sleeper manager dumps out the corpse.  Maybe
> |> some useful organs are scavenged.  Just good housekeeping...
> 
>      If my estate hasn't been paying the rent, then this is exactly the
>      right answer.  In fact, it's exactly what happens today, to people
>      in cryonic suspension, and also to people who need impossibly expensive
>      medical procedures to continue to live. 
> 
What? No opportunity for you to wake up and try to prove your usefulness to
the world? You think you should just be killed even if you are capable of
being self supporting? Most if not all people in cryogenic suspension today
are there because they are dead but hoped that they might be able to live 
again with high technology we don't yet have. There's no killing involved 
in switching them off, they're already dead.

>      And I find you comments childishly naive.  Placing an effectively
>      infinite value on a self-aware entity's existence is a convenient
>      counterbalancing fiction in a world where tribally-forged instincts
>      are to value a stranger's life very little.    
> 
Most religions think there is value in (human) life. Whether it can be
stretched to include artificial intelligences as well is another matter.
Are all these religions childishly naive? Perhaps they are on to something.
In any intelligence there is potential, some might say infinite potential,
for good/bad/indifference. Can you put a price on that potential?

Disclaimer: Nothing I say should ever be considered as anything more than
my opinion, and quite often isn't even that.
-- 
Robert 'Stumpy' Marsh | Brought to you from the bottom of the world
rmarsh@waikato.ac.nz  | both topographically and socio-politically.
+64 7 855 4406        | Whatever happened to Godzone?
    I can't reply to E-Mail but don't let that stop you sending!
    SnailMail: 95 Fairfield Rd, Hamilton, Aotearoa (New Zealand)


