Re:Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
by scubakid on Thursday February 16, 2023 @11:53AM
(#34821268)
I believe consciousness exists on a sliding scale, so maybe sentience should too. This begs the question: at what point is something sentient/conscious enough that rights and ethics come into play? A "sliding scale of rights" sounds a little dubious and hard to pin down.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
by vineyardmike on Thursday February 16, 2023 @01:23PM
(#34823102)
Not to get too political, but since you mention rights it’s already political…
This is practically the same conversation many places are having about abortion. The difference is that we know a human egg eventually becomes a human, we just can’t agree when.
Re:Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
by Ancapistani on Thursday February 16, 2023 @02:55PM
(#34824878)
It raises other, even more troubling questions IMO:
"What is the distribution of human consciousness?"
"How do the most conscious virtual models compare to the least conscious humans?"
"If the most conscious virtual models are more conscious than the least conscious humans... should the virtual models have more rights? Should the humans have fewer? A mix of both?"
Re:Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
by Jeff_Brown on Thursday February 16, 2023 @07:07PM
(#34828693)
Replace AI with chickens or cows in those questions and they become questions that have disturbed many of us for a long time already.
Re:Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
by coldtea on Friday February 17, 2023 @05:12PM
(#34841313)
>This begs the question: at what point is something sentient/conscious enough that rights and ethics come into play?
At no objective point. Rights and ethics are a social constract, and as such can be given (and taken away from) some elite, a few people, most people, or even rocks and lizzards.