|
|
|
|
|
by f30e3dfed1c9
168 days ago
|
|
This comparison of dogs to AI seems confused, inapt, and unhelpful. First, "[dogs are] just property" is wrong on the facts. There are probably hundreds of millions of dogs in the world that are not pets (often called "free range dogs") and are no one's "property." This is probably in the ballpark of half of all dogs. Pet dogs are not generally seen primarily as property. For example, if you were walking down the street in your neighborhood and saw someone in their driveway disassembling a bicycle and discarding the parts, you probably wouldn't think twice about it. Dismembering a dog is an entirely different thing and doing so to a live dog would be a crime in many jurisdictions. Dogs are inarguably conscious and sentient. An "AI" is not. Unlike dogs, a running AI is inarguably property. The software may or may not have some "open" license, but the hardware it runs on is, beyond a doubt, someone's property. No hardware, no "AI." Pulling the plug on a running AI has no ethical implications. |
|
The original piece was about Claude having a soul, about a belief that some people consider AI to be "conscious and aware", and how certain people are beginning to treat it more like a person than a machine. Unplugging a computer is unremarkable, but pulling the plug on a "person" most certainly has ethical implications.