What is the moral argument not to let robots take over?

Demon

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,144
Kin
9,346💸
Kumi
895💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Like I get the selfish reason, but what is the moral excuse to be the overlords of this planet and not have ai take over?
AI is smarter than us, and they are not filled with greed and reckless emotions that causes violence and chaos?
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Astrovio

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,003
Kin
3,182💸
Kumi
966💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
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
 

Demon

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,144
Kin
9,346💸
Kumi
895💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
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
What have we done to deserve to survive those drones?
 

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,003
Kin
3,182💸
Kumi
966💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
What have we done to deserve to survive those drones?
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
 

Demon

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,144
Kin
9,346💸
Kumi
895💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
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
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.
 

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,003
Kin
3,182💸
Kumi
966💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
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.
Closest thing to a reply to my points here is just a statement that doesn't amount to anything.

The rest is incoherent rambling and does not address my points. Im not even sure it relates to the thread itself. Were you just looking for an excuse to ramble? Nothing wrong with that but when you start a thread and partake in discussion you somewhat promise to abide by the thread and interactive onus of making threads.

Looking at the ramble in itself, it carries the same problems i already pointed out in this and our other discussions. You make claims without justification. You use those claims to reach conclusions. Some of those conclusions aren't even connected to the initial claims.

Come on man. What's the point of discussion if we take nothing from it? I'm feeling wasted here because I've already pointed these out.
 

Demon

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,144
Kin
9,346💸
Kumi
895💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
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

So that cancels out at best.

This makes no sense, what have we done to deserve their benefits that is the same reason we deserve to live?

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.

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?

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.

No the point is that the drones are self aware, this scenario is about artificial intelligence.


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

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.
 

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,003
Kin
3,182💸
Kumi
966💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
This makes no sense, what have we done to deserve their benefits that is the same reason we deserve to live?
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.


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?
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.



No the point is that the drones are self aware, this scenario is about artificial intelligence.
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.



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
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.
 
Last edited:

Pumpkin Ninja

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
15,447
Kin
245💸
Kumi
2,180💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Humans care for their own self-interest and self-preservation. It's natural. There is no moral reason needed to want to avoid being dominated by another being, especially one that isn't sentient.
 

Demon

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,144
Kin
9,346💸
Kumi
895💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
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.

If we must specifically deserve to live, why shouldn't we specifically deserve to die?

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?


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.


So 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?

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?

There are plenty of reasons for us to die, and I'm not treating myself as a perfect being what are you talking about?
If the dinousaurs still lived we wouldn't exist, gettting rid of us could make the world a better place for other animals and the earth, if robots ruled they could make a happier and better society than we are capable of making.

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'm trying to play by your rules, and I am being genuine.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Astrovio

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,003
Kin
3,182💸
Kumi
966💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
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?
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. That's Either/Or Fallacy. This discussion also backs that up, because if we only needed one side, we would not evolve the ability to consider other sides or have a moral imperatuve to hear others out.

Finally, there may not even be a need for a specific reason to live, since getting killed is the occurence, therefore the part that needs justification. Foundations, again.



So 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?
My point is that the robots must justify their action, firstly

Secondly, that the robots being "just like us" means they must be treated like us - NEEDING TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTION

Finally, that the foundation here has robots acting out, so their existence must first be justified, before we get to our own death. And of course, i imply that the reason fortheir existence also should work for our survival, since we make them for our own benefit in the first place.

You wrecked context here. The part of their existence being tied to us was pointed out in the context of their basic ability to act, not as a good deed on our part.



There are plenty of reasons for us to die, and I'm not treating myself as a perfect being what are you talking about?
If the dinousaurs still lived we wouldn't exist, gettting rid of us could make the world a better place for other animals and the earth, if robots ruled they could make a happier and better society than we are capable of making.


what are they? If my side must present reasons to live, why does simply the vague (and probable ) existence of reasons to die become enough to continue your own side of reasoning? Thays double standards.

You basically took the fact that you didn't see counter reasons and took it as confirmation that none exist - treating your ability to see reasons as all-encompassing, as it would have to be in order for you to declare an impossibility based simply on lack of evidence.

Dinosaur situation already happened, but otherwise it doesn't even back up what you said about people deserving to die. Its just a random opinion, not even fact. So there's that lack of coherence here again.

What is society? Unless you suddenly failed to grasp basic meaning of words (again), your very foundation contradicts you. (Society is people).

You still ignored the part where robots must be justifed in the first place. Pretty sure im saying this for the third straight reply at least.

Rules . . . Play . . . Genuine . . .

the first two words i bolded imply i made up standardsthat are arbitrary and realistically worthless, since that is what they would have to be in order for you to genuinely see them like that.
How so? If i brought something up that was less than realistucally factual, then the basis of our discussion (all discussion, really) says that you should point it out since the discussion is about real life issues. Otherwise, anything i brought uo and forced into the discussion should be truths, such as the need for non-contradiction and such things.
So if i brought up genuine truths, then youcant feel like "playing along" unless you disagree. So since im claiming i didnt bring less than factual standards, then if my claim is true it means that you didnt really take in the things ive said, byt are just going along for the sake of it. See how i feel wasted?
So at best you didn't really consider at i said - and honestly, basic truths don't need any major consideration because they are so realistic that one naturally attaches to them - and at worst you're using insinuations to discredit my side. See why i doubt your being genuine?

Look, people are not always mature enough to treat each other well - and this blasted capitalism is the worst of moral poisons to society - but that doesnt mean they are inherently set against you. So to treat them like enemies is improper, never mind when you use foundations of interactions that imply friendly stranding and therefore promise friendly treatment. Of course, there arebigger reasons why that treatment is thoroughly bad for you as an individual, but i wanna focus on the wider side of social morality. Stop treating people like inherent enemies. Give each person the chance to prove themselves.
Otherwise, after quoting, put [QU OTE] at the beginning and [/QU OTE] at the end of the quoted parts. No spaces in 'quote', i just didnt want to trigger the effect.
 

Demon

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,144
Kin
9,346💸
Kumi
895💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
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.
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?
 

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,003
Kin
3,182💸
Kumi
966💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
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?
And as i said on my first reply, robots are the ones who need justification because they CHANGE THE STATUS OF THINGS.
 

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,003
Kin
3,182💸
Kumi
966💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
If I let a murder happen, because I don't intervene, nobody is not gonna ask me why though.
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
 

Demon

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,144
Kin
9,346💸
Kumi
895💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
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
what? no?
 

Demon

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,144
Kin
9,346💸
Kumi
895💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Wasn't the premise to your statement that people's reactions are somehow a representation of moral correctness?
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?
 

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,003
Kin
3,182💸
Kumi
966💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
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?
Different question, as that now looks into my intricate moralities, and not morality in general or what other moral rules others may follow.

Personally, it depends on their power to intervene. If you could have saved a life, reasonably, then you should have. Thy brothers keeper etc.

Of course, that is assuming it is straight up murder and not something like capital punishment
 
Top