Infinite beings doesn’t mean everything is sentient being. Plants in particular seems to not be in the rounds of samsara, despite it being alive.
So the question for AI is that is the AI programming code capable of supporting sentient beings to be reborn into it? At which cut off point? Using what criterion? Complexity? If even simple AI is sentient, then we are holding sentient beings in smartphones, does destroying smartphones constitute killing then?
A lot of these issues cannot be have simple answers, a lot of books, knowledge, investigation, experiment etc needs to be done.
@Jacky to claim that AI would (forever) remain non-sentient is also too fast a judgement. How could you know if 30 years from now the person you’re talking to is a robot or a human being? When all external signs is indistinguishable from humans, short of opening up the insides. It could be that some sentient being find it possible to be reborn into such a robot body. And then claim sentience.
I think this is the most interesting thought experiment for Buddhists in regards to AI. The biggest problem I see is related to knowing what exactly sentience is. Do we have a universally accepted definition of it? Do we have experiments or tests thats can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is sentient? I think the answer to both of those questions is no. Buddhists are much more amenable to recognising sentience in non-humans than certain other religions. So one major hurdle would be getting people of other religions, and the politicians that represent them, to acknowledge that sentience in a robot is even possible. If someone doesn’t acknowledge sentience in a cat, they probably won’t acknowledge it in a robot.
People seem to think that AI is most dangerous after gaining sentience. However, I’d argue that the opposite is true. Dumb AI is the most dangerous. You can’t argue or reason with a pattern finding math-based algorithm, which is what AI is now. If a weaponized drone is sent on a mission to track down a terrorist and kill him based on facial recognition, but the facial recognition messes up and kills the wrong person, there’s nothing that can be done about that unless you have a human in the loop. However, in this fictional future where AI is something more than statistical algorithms, and assuming that an AI is capable of having thoughts of self-preservation, which is usually assumed, then from that one could lead the AI to understand that other beings also want to live and therefore shouldn’t be killed.
Earlier in the thread, the OP seemed to think that the idea of being reborn into a robot is somehow worse than being reborn into an organic body. I don’t think there’s any reason to assume that. Although even a being reborn into a robot would be subject to greed and anger, perhaps not being reborn into a biological body that evolved from violent murderous monkeys would be a boon. That being wouldn’t be biologically programmed with a fight or flight response or hormones that heighten aggression. They also wouldn’t be driven by primal urges to reproduce and so would be free of all the baggage that goes along with that. Look at all the horror humans have subjected other people to throughout history in the name of sex. Frankly, it’s appalling. We might all be better off being reborn as robots.
Can you quote any scientific paper or scientist who claims this for sure? As far as I know, the infinity or not of universe is still a matter which many physicists are open about, could be finite or infinite.
Ya, mind can exist without brain, but seriously? Buddhism is not panpsychism. I don’t see drinking rainwater or burning feather as an act of killing.
Yes. For Buddhists, either bring a person who can read minds to determine if a robot is sentient, or get a robot to give past life details, of which the details are made sure to not come from its database, and we can find the past family of the robot. The other scientifically lab way of doing it involves systematically killing robots, which is risky (due to potential bad kamma) and expensive.
For people who are skeptical of electronic binary-based computers ever being a form into which a being can get caught up & reborn, I’d encourage you to consider another form of artificial intelligence: artificial biological intelligence.
Do you think it’s possible for a labgrown being with artificially created DNA based 99% on homo sapien DNA to be a part of the human realm?
What about a genetically modified ape, with 90% original ape DNA?
What about a heavily genetically modified 75% original cat?
… 60% Parrot
… 50% Fish
… 30% Octopus
… 20% Tree
What about something with genes we wrote from scratch? Working upward from figuring out how to code DNA to write metabolic enzymes, up to organelles, full cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, sensory organs, and a biological system for processing sensory inputs and determining actions?
If you acknowledge that the material biological form you inhabit is something into which a being destined to the human realm can be reborn, on what basis can you reject the possibility for artificially arranged material biological form can become the destination for a being headed for the human realm to get caught up in?
There could be fundamental stuffs which biology has that metals, plastics, chips and electronics doesn’t. Although with the consideration of realms beyond humans and animals, this is less likely to be taken seriously in Buddhist circles.
Say in scientific circles, where we restrict to humans. Our gut organisms might play a role in emotional regulation. Maybe for robots to become sentient, they need some gut microbiomes, or to mimic these functions via some other chips.
Ultimately, I think it’s down to experimental evidences. Try and see. What we have are mere hypothesis and speculations.
