[falcor84]

Then according to your argument, the moral consideration only depends on the moral agent, right? So if tomorrow AIs decide that they are alive, it would be morally incumbent upon them to adapt the world to support themselves, correct?

[anon7725]

> So if tomorrow AIs decide that they are alive, it would be morally incumbent upon them to adapt the world to support themselves, correct?

The only system of morality that applies to LLMs is their effect on us and the planet. Don’t anthropomorphize a matrix.

[lukan]

You seem to have the assumption, that humans MUST have the moral to preserve primarily HUMANS?

I don't think that is universal true. Personally I my ethics revolve around how to preserve and spread life in general. I happen to be human and we are the most capable and sentient species so that means creating and maintaining conditions specifically for humans, but if another species comes that is better suited and acts better then it would be selfish to insists on us.

Having said that, AI to me is a tool, not a species and I don't see how it can be ever be sentient. But I also don't know how consciousness works. So I am open for the questions of the future in the future - and now rather focus on the practical implications that AI will have on our current society.

[falcor84]

I'm not anthropomorphizing them, I'm animifying.

[w4der]

For AI to decide that they are alive and moral agents would require them to be able to take moral responsibility for their actions. As long as the labs that run them deny that responsibility, or an AI can´t convincingly demonstrate it can take moral responsibility on its own, they are not moral agents.