First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
Post Reply Should AI be able to give birth?
17065 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Fredericton, NB
Offline
Posted 4/20/16
I'm pretty sure we need to cut down on the birth giving, not increase it. In theory if a higher population was currently sustainable though, I don't see why not.
20969 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 4/20/16

hemicuda2 wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

If we were to have AI that has sentience with a human body via adding a AI BRAIN <- Biological and technological to a human body.

Should it be allowed to have children.


In such a situation the sexual organs would exist and they would be able to reproduce and have a human baby in theory since the body would have been a human developed one/used body.

SO DISCUSS lets talk about the future of ROBOT-HUMAN relationships and there future children!



I know what it is you're asking but i feel like its not necessary to give an answer to. Putting an AI brain into something as pathetic as the human body would be stupid. We would put AI into robotic bodies that are far more capable than these useless bodies. But i'm sure you're speaking more hypothetical than anything so i'll just go ahead and say yeah don't see why not.


well yeah its a hypothetical ...i mean if it was me i would like to be put into a non-human body also as you say our bodies are useless
27282 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/20/16
............what?
6377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/20/16

ZavinRoyalheart wrote:

Explain this AI brain thing to me. Are you talking about turning someone's brain into data because that wouldn't be alive. It would just be an extremely sophisticated AI.
AI is by definition artificial. It isn't alive. When it becomes sentient it is no longer AI. It would be a life form. A horrible abomination of a life form but a life form none the less.


it stays an AI because it is an "artificial intelligence", it was not born naturally so it is artificial, as in , created. and you sure is why we would all get killed if an AI existed, because you think of it as an abomination. by the way once something becomes self-aware it is alive so an AI would be alive no matter how it was created.
20969 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 4/20/16

Ravenstein wrote:

Machines and humans 'reproduce' in totally different ways. You don't assemble a baby by slapping together some parts that were made in China. Likewise machines do not make new machines by shooting DNA at each other. Although it would make factory work more...horrifying.

I could see a human-sentient robot couple adopting a child but actually reproducing...I don't see how that would work.


What i mean is for human creation you need a body that can produce an egg and another body that can create semen.

If you have two AI's running with a organic body that creates semen and one that creates an egg produced with human dna (From the bodys creation before the AI'S brain was implemented i assume it could be possible.

Which was what i meant XD
20969 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 4/20/16

Tinamarie101 wrote:

............what?


The future Tinamarie the future
27282 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/20/16

Ryulightorb wrote:


Tinamarie101 wrote:

............what?


The future Tinamarie the future


thats gonna be one strange future! xD
359 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Offline
Posted 4/20/16
This reminds me of Chobits.
6663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 4/20/16 , edited 4/20/16

Ryulightorb wrote:


Ravenstein wrote:

Machines and humans 'reproduce' in totally different ways. You don't assemble a baby by slapping together some parts that were made in China. Likewise machines do not make new machines by shooting DNA at each other. Although it would make factory work more...horrifying.

I could see a human-sentient robot couple adopting a child but actually reproducing...I don't see how that would work.


What i mean is for human creation you need a body that can produce an egg and another body that can create semen.

If you have two AI's running with a organic body that creates semen and one that creates an egg produced with human dna (From the bodys creation before the AI'S brain was implemented i assume it could be possible.

Which was what i meant XD


So clones with robot brains?

I would say possible...but that seems kind of needlessly complicated. You already have clones or at least genetically modified and grown humans. Why are you taking out the clone/modified brain and replacing it with a robot brain?
4054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/20/16
It's not even robot-human relations anymore if it's a human body. Like seriously how the hell does that even count as a robot? and where is this human body coming from? Are we talking arificial bodies that are basically human clone bodies with A.I put into them so that the bodies aren't just vegetables or are we talking putting A.I into brain dead humans where it's been determined the mind is gone?

I can see the "ethical" issue you were trying to make with this senario but it's a bit flawed.

But anyway I'll just assume it's the former in which case I'd say probably no because I don't have confidence humans will ever be able to just create a living being like that without screwing SOMETHING up. and if we are talking genetic defects and you let them have children that is just putting even more corrupted DNA into the gene pool. Like a few others have said we shouldn't be playing god here.

Even if you are atheist and put aside the religious issues with such a thing there is just WAY too much that can go wrong. have you not seen just about every monster movie ever? Those not based on aliens or demons generally start with scientists going "AHA WE'VE DONE IT WE'VE CREATED ..." only for it to break free and cause chaos. This is obviously an extreme example but the point is even with everything we currently know I don't think we know even 1% of what we need to know to be qualified to just create life forms.

Also you mention it being no different from making childrenn to which I say IT IS IN EVERY WAY DIFFERENT!!! The body does it on it's own and it's just a natural part of how our race continues. While stuff does go wrong at times it's generally pretty safe. It's completely different from artificially making life as if we totally understand all the complexities of life.

We can't just act like we know better than god/nature and can make life just as good or better. Again whether you look at it from a religious or purely science perspective this kind of thing just isn't a good idea.


However if we somehow ever reached the point where we could just make new lifeforms safely I vote the first thing we make shouldn't be humans. It should be monster girls like cat girls and centaurs and lamia! That would be so much more awesome than just making more smelly humans. We have too many of those already!
Posted 4/20/16

wolfbrother0 wrote:


ZavinRoyalheart wrote:

Explain this AI brain thing to me. Are you talking about turning someone's brain into data because that wouldn't be alive. It would just be an extremely sophisticated AI.
AI is by definition artificial. It isn't alive. When it becomes sentient it is no longer AI. It would be a life form. A horrible abomination of a life form but a life form none the less.


it stays an AI because it is an "artificial intelligence", it was not born naturally so it is artificial, as in , created. and you sure is why we would all get killed if an AI existed, because you think of it as an abomination. by the way once something becomes self-aware it is alive so an AI would be alive no matter how it was created.


Wrong. Being self-aware does not make you alive. Also a machines self-awareness isn't real sentience. It just becomes advanced enough that can "think" and "feel emotions". It's all part of it's coding. Machines don't magically become alive.

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current definition in biology is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits
1. Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
2.Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life
3.Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4.Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5.Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
6.Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
7.Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
20969 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 4/20/16

Ravenstein wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


Ravenstein wrote:

Machines and humans 'reproduce' in totally different ways. You don't assemble a baby by slapping together some parts that were made in China. Likewise machines do not make new machines by shooting DNA at each other. Although it would make factory work more...horrifying.

I could see a human-sentient robot couple adopting a child but actually reproducing...I don't see how that would work.


What i mean is for human creation you need a body that can produce an egg and another body that can create semen.

If you have two AI's running with a organic body that creates semen and one that creates an egg produced with human dna (From the bodys creation before the AI'S brain was implemented i assume it could be possible.

Which was what i meant XD


So clones with robot brains?

I would say possible...but that seems kind of needlessly complicated. You already have clones or at least genetically modified and grown humans. Why are you taking out the clone/modified brain and replacing it with a robot brain?


pointless and overly complicated yes but this is more of a hypothetical its not meant to be efficient in any way
20969 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 4/20/16 , edited 4/20/16

ZavinRoyalheart wrote:


wolfbrother0 wrote:


ZavinRoyalheart wrote:

Explain this AI brain thing to me. Are you talking about turning someone's brain into data because that wouldn't be alive. It would just be an extremely sophisticated AI.
AI is by definition artificial. It isn't alive. When it becomes sentient it is no longer AI. It would be a life form. A horrible abomination of a life form but a life form none the less.


it stays an AI because it is an "artificial intelligence", it was not born naturally so it is artificial, as in , created. and you sure is why we would all get killed if an AI existed, because you think of it as an abomination. by the way once something becomes self-aware it is alive so an AI would be alive no matter how it was created.


Wrong. Being self-aware does not make you alive. Also a machines self-awareness isn't real sentience. It just becomes advanced enough that can "think" and "feel emotions". It's all part of it's coding. Machines don't magically become alive.

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current definition in biology is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits
1. Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
2.Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life
3.Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4.Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5.Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
6.Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
7.Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.


"the current definition in biology"
Well it wouldn't be seen under biology.

The generally accepted term for "Life" is anything living or with self conscious.

but your right it wouldn't fit under the term life if you want to be nitpicky but it's still like us existing and functioning on its own merits.
4375 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Rainbow Factory
Offline
Posted 4/20/16
Gattaca
6377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/20/16 , edited 4/21/16

ZavinRoyalheart wrote:


wolfbrother0 wrote:


ZavinRoyalheart wrote:

Explain this AI brain thing to me. Are you talking about turning someone's brain into data because that wouldn't be alive. It would just be an extremely sophisticated AI.
AI is by definition artificial. It isn't alive. When it becomes sentient it is no longer AI. It would be a life form. A horrible abomination of a life form but a life form none the less.


it stays an AI because it is an "artificial intelligence", it was not born naturally so it is artificial, as in , created. and you sure is why we would all get killed if an AI existed, because you think of it as an abomination. by the way once something becomes self-aware it is alive so an AI would be alive no matter how it was created.


Wrong. Being self-aware does not make you alive. Also a machines self-awareness isn't real sentience. It just becomes advanced enough that can "think" and "feel emotions". It's all part of it's coding. Machines don't magically become alive.

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current definition in biology is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits
1. Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
2.Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life
3.Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4.Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5.Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
6.Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
7.Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.


[unnecessary insulting comment removed by mod] if an AI gains the ability to think and feel it is sentient, it is alive because of that fact, you can spout bull shit about biology as much as you like but it only deals with [LIFE AS WE KNOW IT/i] . Based off of what we have already encountered.
AI would naturally redefine life, it is even theorised that such other types of lifeforms could exist. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/05/stephen-hawking-on-non-carbon-based-alien-life.html


Are you [unnecessary insulting comment removed by mod] drawing a blank on the ethical implications of sentient technology?


Machines do become alive once they are self-aware, just a kind of life that we have not come across. Again your attitude is the kind that would get us all killed if AI's ever come into being.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.