Re: Fwd: [ai-philosophy] Robotic evolution and ethics

From: Tennessee Leeuwenburg (
Date: Mon Jun 12 2006 - 18:10:46 MDT

It's clearly silly. Obsoleteness (obsolescence?) is insufficient reason
for killing something. It has no functional advantage. I would accept
being killed by a superior lifeform if it were for some reason such as
competition for resources or suchlike, but this example clearly elevates
being "inferior" to being morally worthless, and deserving of
extermination. I think this list is above debating the morality of daleks.


J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> Interesting anecdote about Marcus Hutter from another AI related list.
> J. Andrew Rogers
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: "Eray Ozkural" <>
>> Date: June 11, 2006 2:40:14 PM PDT
>> To:
>> Subject: [ai-philosophy] Robotic evolution and ethics
>> Reply-To:
>> I think some breakaway from dualism/monism debate can inspire.
>> I was chatting with Marcus Hutter and Calude. Marcus was talking about
>> the common ideal of many AI researchers, that our children
>> will be better than us. An idea that I agree with. You know that
>> feeling of "playing God" that I'm sure everybody here has known.
>> So, I wanted to poke some fun, and I asked
>> - Your robot turns its head and says "You are obsolete" and
>> kills you. Is this acceptable?
>> Marcus answered (AFAICR) "Of course. It's evolution."
>> I gave some thought to it, and I found I didn't quite agree with it.
>> What kind of a creature would kill something just because it is
>> inferior in some aspect?
>> Discuss :)
>> Best Regards,
>> -- Eray Ozkural (exa), PhD candidate. Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent
>> University, Ankara
>> Malfunct:
>> ai-philosophy:
>> Pardus: KDE Project:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT