From: Joaquim Gāndara (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 11:00:13 MST
From: "Samantha Atkins" <email@example.com>
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> > Mark Waser wrote:
> >> Suppose I'm playing a fantasy role-playing game (Dungeons & Dragons or
> >> something similar) and one of my characters dies a horrible death. Is
> >> this morally wrong?
> > No. I am reasonably certain that fictionally imagined characters don't
> > have qualia. I'm in really, really deep trouble if they do.
> So, as AI empowered characters in such games advance, perhaps to
> the point of having real qualia, it eventually becomes morally
> wrong. Where is this point? How can it be be determined?
> If we exist within a sim/VR for the amusement of more powerful
> beings then that at least is immoral even though we might be
> strictly their creations.
If we are, then they have apparently decided that it isn't immoral.
Maybe from their perspective, we are predictable automatons, and
comparable to their insects. In their opinion, we probably lack some
property that is the essence of experiencing pain and suffering.
A higher order of qualia, maybe? "Qualia^2"?
We can only subjectively determine the point where something becomes
immoral; we can only decide when an AI is "sufficiently like us".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT