Would you replace a loved-one (a child, spouse, parent etc.) with an artificial “tool”? Would it matter to you if they’re not real even when you couldn’t tell the difference? And if your answer is yes, you had no trouble replacing a loved-one with an artificial copy, then our views/morals are fundamentally so different that I can’t see us ever agreeing.
It’s like trying to convince me that having sex with animals is awesome and great and they like it too, and I’m just no thanks, that’s gross and wrong, please never talk to me again. I know I don’t necessarily have the strongest logic in the AI (and especially “AI art”) discussion but that’s how I feel.
Thats a lot of different questions in a lot of different contexts. If my parent decided to upload their conciousness near the end of their life into a mech suit covered in latex(basically) that was indistinguishable physically from a human(or even not, who am I to judge) and the process of uploading a conciousness was well understood and practiced, then yes, I would respect their decision. If you wouldn’t, you either have difficulty placing yourself in hypothetical situations designed to test the limits of societal norms, or you abjectly do not care about the autonomy of your parent.
Child, I have no issue adopting. If they happen to be an artificial human I don’t see why that should proclude them from being allowed to have parents.
Spouse, I’m not going to create one to my liking. But if we lived in a world with AI creating other AI that are all sentient, some of which presumably choosing to take a physical form in an aforementioned mech, why shouldnt i date them? Your immediate response is sex, but lets ignore that. Is an asexual relationship with a sentient robot ok? What about a friendship with said robot? Are you even allowed to treat a sentient robot as a human? Whats the distinction? I’m not attempting a slippery slope, I genuinely would like to hear where your distinctions between what is and isn’t acceptable lies. Because I think this miscommunication either stems from a misunderstanding about the possible sentience of ai in the future, or from the lack of perspective of what it might be like from their perspective.
Edit: just for the record, i dont downvote comments like yours, but someone did, so i had to upvote you.
Thanks for the reply (and the upvote, although I’ve hidden all lemmy scores from my account so I really don’t care about voting for that matter).
My thought experiment is a lot more complicated if the “AI tool” is sentient, i.e. it can be proven without a hint of a doubt that the robot is essentially no different from a human. If we ever get that far, it’s a whole another can of questions.
What I tried to (perhaps unsuccessfully) argue is that, yes we have and are replacing humans with tools all the time, but there’s also a line (I think) most wouldn’t cross, like replacing a loved-one with a tool. In my original argument that tool would just be an imitation, not a sentient machine. Maybe even a perfect imitation, but nothing more than that - a machine that has learned how to behave, speak etc. I don’t think many of us would be happy with a replacement like that.
For me it’s same with AI art. I can’t appreciate art made by AI because it’s just imitation made by a tool. It has no meaning, no “soul”.
Ah, sorry. I misunderstood your argument. No, I would never replace a loved one with a “tool”. But replacing loved ones with tools was never something I was arguing for. Chatgpt is a very crude prototype for the type of AI I am referring to. And he didnt say chatgpt, he said “degenerative AI” but also stated “AI art”.
The entire argument is centered around those who use or make ai art being “shitty people”, no exceptions. But that falls apart when you ever remotely analyze it. There are ethical ways to do the entire process.
Nah, that is a false equivalence. Replacing “people” with machines is very different from replacing “bonds” with machines. You are not literally killing the people and replacing them with a robot. It’s a job.
You are conflating replacing the job with literally replacing the person. And personal bonds are not jobs, nor are hobbies. You are not going to have someone or a robot play golf for you. Nor would you replace your mom.
Art and culture are two different things, they are not replacing bonds. But i think the disconnect there comes solely from the current state of ai. Once it improves to the point of being indistinguishable as all technologies do, i think those will be seen as much less problematic outside of the lens of capitalism.
You are not literally killing the people and replacing them with a robot.
… You think my position is that I think stable diffusion will kill people.
Like Body Snatchers?
To anyone still reading: This is ultimately why I didn’t go for the point-by-point essay post so many else did. How am I supposed to respond to this? Genuinely.
You asked me if id replace my mom with a robot despite knowing the answer would be no. How tf am i supposed to respond to that. How tf am i even supposed to do that. Ask bad questions, get bad answers.
Would you replace a loved-one (a child, spouse, parent etc.) with an artificial “tool”? Would it matter to you if they’re not real even when you couldn’t tell the difference? And if your answer is yes, you had no trouble replacing a loved-one with an artificial copy, then our views/morals are fundamentally so different that I can’t see us ever agreeing.
It’s like trying to convince me that having sex with animals is awesome and great and they like it too, and I’m just no thanks, that’s gross and wrong, please never talk to me again. I know I don’t necessarily have the strongest logic in the AI (and especially “AI art”) discussion but that’s how I feel.
Thats a lot of different questions in a lot of different contexts. If my parent decided to upload their conciousness near the end of their life into a mech suit covered in latex(basically) that was indistinguishable physically from a human(or even not, who am I to judge) and the process of uploading a conciousness was well understood and practiced, then yes, I would respect their decision. If you wouldn’t, you either have difficulty placing yourself in hypothetical situations designed to test the limits of societal norms, or you abjectly do not care about the autonomy of your parent.
Child, I have no issue adopting. If they happen to be an artificial human I don’t see why that should proclude them from being allowed to have parents.
Spouse, I’m not going to create one to my liking. But if we lived in a world with AI creating other AI that are all sentient, some of which presumably choosing to take a physical form in an aforementioned mech, why shouldnt i date them? Your immediate response is sex, but lets ignore that. Is an asexual relationship with a sentient robot ok? What about a friendship with said robot? Are you even allowed to treat a sentient robot as a human? Whats the distinction? I’m not attempting a slippery slope, I genuinely would like to hear where your distinctions between what is and isn’t acceptable lies. Because I think this miscommunication either stems from a misunderstanding about the possible sentience of ai in the future, or from the lack of perspective of what it might be like from their perspective.
Edit: just for the record, i dont downvote comments like yours, but someone did, so i had to upvote you.
Thanks for the reply (and the upvote, although I’ve hidden all lemmy scores from my account so I really don’t care about voting for that matter).
My thought experiment is a lot more complicated if the “AI tool” is sentient, i.e. it can be proven without a hint of a doubt that the robot is essentially no different from a human. If we ever get that far, it’s a whole another can of questions.
What I tried to (perhaps unsuccessfully) argue is that, yes we have and are replacing humans with tools all the time, but there’s also a line (I think) most wouldn’t cross, like replacing a loved-one with a tool. In my original argument that tool would just be an imitation, not a sentient machine. Maybe even a perfect imitation, but nothing more than that - a machine that has learned how to behave, speak etc. I don’t think many of us would be happy with a replacement like that.
For me it’s same with AI art. I can’t appreciate art made by AI because it’s just imitation made by a tool. It has no meaning, no “soul”.
Oh, boy, this one’s really hard. I’ll give it my best shot, though. Phoo. Okay, here goes.
Yes.
Ohhhh fuck. Oh god. Oh please. Scubus, how did I do? Did I win?
Now please argue to me that chatgpt is sentient.
Ah, sorry. I misunderstood your argument. No, I would never replace a loved one with a “tool”. But replacing loved ones with tools was never something I was arguing for. Chatgpt is a very crude prototype for the type of AI I am referring to. And he didnt say chatgpt, he said “degenerative AI” but also stated “AI art”.
The entire argument is centered around those who use or make ai art being “shitty people”, no exceptions. But that falls apart when you ever remotely analyze it. There are ethical ways to do the entire process.
You are arguing in favor of replacing people, flesh and blood, with machines.
Manual labor? Sure. I love post-scarcity.
Art? Culture? My mom? Obscene. Profane, even. Morally reprehensible. We’re holding you back from recess until you learn to appreciate your classmates.
Nah, that is a false equivalence. Replacing “people” with machines is very different from replacing “bonds” with machines. You are not literally killing the people and replacing them with a robot. It’s a job.
You are conflating replacing the job with literally replacing the person. And personal bonds are not jobs, nor are hobbies. You are not going to have someone or a robot play golf for you. Nor would you replace your mom.
Art and culture are two different things, they are not replacing bonds. But i think the disconnect there comes solely from the current state of ai. Once it improves to the point of being indistinguishable as all technologies do, i think those will be seen as much less problematic outside of the lens of capitalism.
… You think my position is that I think stable diffusion will kill people.
Like Body Snatchers?
To anyone still reading: This is ultimately why I didn’t go for the point-by-point essay post so many else did. How am I supposed to respond to this? Genuinely.
You asked me if id replace my mom with a robot despite knowing the answer would be no. How tf am i supposed to respond to that. How tf am i even supposed to do that. Ask bad questions, get bad answers.