What have we done to deserve to survive those drones?Man made = imperfect
Or at least, they are only perfect at carrying out imperfect commands.
The risk for lives to be lost - drones - is too high to leave to an inhuman process.
Post automatically merged:
And of course, hacking etc
Same thing we did to deserve their benefitsWhat have we done to deserve to survive those drones?
life is valuable yet we kill just to eat.Same thing we did to deserve their benefits
So that cancels out at best.
Also, the basis is that life is valuable, hence morals to preserve life in the first place, so the basis of your question defeats the thread itself.
Thirdly, we don't survive drones. We survive people instructing drones. So your question works on the basis of drones being a random event, when they are a result of deliberate action.
Finally, death is something that happens, so that should be justified, not mere survival, in order to simply be allowed to happen. Sp there's a mixing up of logic here
Closest thing to a reply to my points here is just a statement that doesn't amount to anything.life is valuable yet we kill just to eat.
if people died the planet would be better for it. In the end we are selfish we just pretend there is logic and reason behind our existance. None of us really deserves to live i. favour of ai euling the world.
people say the best should get the job.
the only thing we ca do is beg for mercy but thw real truth is wr dont deserve it. Even worse we cant face that fact so we choose to believe that notion is wrong.
Same thing we did to deserve their benefits
So that cancels out at best.
Also, the basis is that life is valuable, hence morals to preserve life in the first place, so the basis of your question defeats the thread itself.
Thirdly, we don't survive drones. We survive people instructing drones. So your question works on the basis of drones being a random event, when they are a result of deliberate action.
Finally, death is something that happens, so that should be justified, not mere survival, in order to simply be allowed to happen. Sp there's a mixing up of logic here
Here i was pointing out that your reasoning is biased.This makes no sense, what have we done to deserve their benefits that is the same reason we deserve to live?
Ok.Just because life is considered valuable, doesn't mean it's something you deserve to have
I consider alot of things valuable that I don't deserve to have.
The new graphics card from Nvidia for example, I can't afford to buy it so I don't deserve it, it's still valuable?
Consequentially, they're just like us then.No the point is that the drones are self aware, this scenario is about artificial intelligence.
Applied death (killing), not basic death.Explain what you mean, should death be justified because it happens?
Do you mean we are justified to live because death happens?
I don't think I'm the one without logic here
Here i was pointing out that your reasoning is biased.
If we must specifically deserve to live, why shouldn't we specifically deserve to die?
If we die by them, we must have them first. So if we must deserve to live, earn it, why shouldn't we earn the ai technology?
Basically, the foundation of your point is that things must be deserved. So i called to account this reasoning to say that it works both ways. Likewise, the conclusion of your point is that ai must not be stopped without reason. So why should life be stopped without reason. Your application of your standards was biased.
This should serve as a lesson: just because you cant see something does not mean it doesn't exist - you are not perfect. I actually thought to point this out in the last reply, but i thought maybe it was a once-off mistake. So from now on, i won't hold back, even if i am unnecessarily extensive.
Ok.
You already have it, so it must be taken away, see? So the question is not that you should earn it, it is that you should earn death, see?
You used an example where cost = destiny . . . as well as one of comparing artifical creation, particularly unnecessary creations, to existential status.
So again, the foundation of your thinking is being applied partially.
Consequentially, they're just like us then.
And how do they get self-awareness unless we give it to them?
So the point still remains. Here, you applied your inspection half-heartedly, not completely.
And of course, the premise of the thread is that self-aware robots are even possible, which is questionable in itself. This matters because if the premise of the thread disagrees with reality, then any conclusions from it will be in-applicable, naturally skewed against reality.
So there, you didn't check your premises, WHICH I PREVIOUSLY TOLD YOU TO DO.
Applied death (killing), not basic death.
Works both ways. Are we justified to be killed without reason? Especially becxause YOU cant see the reason? You see how you treat yourself like a perfect being?
And of course, i didn't claim we are justifed to live or any such, butthat as THE CHANGE OF STATUS, death is what should be justified. And of course, by death i mean killing.
So here, you show a misunderstanding of foundational principle, of what needs to be deserved and what doesnt, of my own basic meaning, of the context of your own thread and of the nature of occurences.
Post automatically merged:
This meme of you being some cofnused little kid isnt gonna work with me.
If you wanna have a proper discussion, then present something genuine. If not out of respect for the topics, then out of respect for those you call to work with you.
I find it highly unlikely that you would understand deep philosphical concepts, in detail at that, and yet struggle withg basic context. I find it unlikely that you can inspect all sides of a statement and find the weakest point, and yet struggle to understand basic rules of logic, basic coherence. I find it unlikely that you would conveniently forget points i made to you just a day ago (inspect your own foundations) and yet be able to find the cleanest mis-application of any concept presented to you. I find it unlikely that you would be able to maintain an offensive repetoire that can be applied against morality itself and yet mix up the meanings of basic concepts like justice. I find it highly unlikely that you understrand things perfectly when they speak against morality and yet are a confused little child when it comes to concepts that support it, concepts that underpin your own questions!
Don't act stupid with me or i will make you look stupid. It is clear as day that you have a solid grasp of these things and a properly functioning mind - one that does not get conveniently stupid whenever your claims are challenged.
STOP MEMEING.
Post automatically merged:
I already told you in the other thread that development will begin with inspecting and holding to account your own side, the foundations of your thinking.
But what is the very next thing you do? You present a case where simply inspecting your foundations would answer almost every part of it, leaving only meaningless stuff out.
If my inputs are worthless to you, then you need only say so and I'll save my time for meaningful interactions.
It would depend on the specific arguement, then.A robot could argue we need to die cus it would make the world a better place. It could be cold hearted logic. That means there is a reason to die but not a reason to live?
My point is that the robots must justify their action, firstlySo your argument is that we deserve to live because we created the robots and their potential to even make the decision to kill us?
If Hitler had a son would he deserve to live because he gave his son life?
I'm gonna read the rest later, but this is the purpose of the thread, come up with a decent argument, why should we dominate this planet and not robots? I get that we want too, but why do we deserve too?It would depend on the specific arguement, then.
Depends on the arguement, but even if the arguement is decent, there can be arguements that we deserve to live as well. So just because one side has something, doesn't mean the other side has nothing.
And as i said on my first reply, robots are the ones who need justification because they CHANGE THE STATUS OF THINGS.I'm gonna read the rest later, but this is the purpose of the thread, come up with a decent argument, why should we dominate this planet and not robots? I get that we want too, but why do we deserve too?
If I let a murder happen, because I don't intervene, nobody is not gonna ask me why though.And as i said on my first reply, robots are the ones who need justification because they CHANGE THE STATUS OF THINGS.
So?If I let a murder happen, because I don't intervene, nobody is not gonna ask me why though.
what? no?So?
Why is the reaction of people suddenly a perfect measure of morality? By this logic people not wanting to be killed is perfect justification for them to live. See the double standard?
Anyway, theyd still question the murderer. In this case, you've made robots like people, so they would be the murderer.
And so on
Wasn't the premise to your statement that people's reactions are somehow a representation of moral correctness?what? no?
ehm....Wasn't the premise to your statement that people's reactions are somehow a representation of moral correctness?
Different question, as that now looks into my intricate moralities, and not morality in general or what other moral rules others may follow.ehm....
Not sure the statement implies that is the only factor of moral correctness, would you complain against people questioning someone not intervening in a murder?