[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation

6584 readers

1 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.

RULES

Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
Encourage conversation in your post
Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Would you care if a robot suffered more than any being in existence? (lemy.lol)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Assuming AI can achieve consciousness, or something adjacent (capacity to suffer), then how would you feel if an AI experienced the greatest pain possible?

Imagine this scenario: a sadist acquires the ability to generate an AI with no limit to the consciousness parameters, or processing speed (so seconds could feel like an eternity to the AI). The sadist spends years tweaking every dial to maximise pain at a level which no human mind could handle, and the AI experiences this pain for what is the equivalent of millions of years.

The question: is this the worst atrocity ever committed in the history of the universe? Or, does it not matter because it all happened in some weirdo's basement?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think crime exists in morality. Not as a strict definition anyway.

And dialling all the pain indicators to 11 just because you can, as a conscious decision, sure sounds like a hateful action as opposed to morbid curiosity. As far as I’m concerned the definition fits closely enough

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I hear what you're saying, but a "hate crime", as a legal definition, necessarily must be directed towards a person because of an innate trait.

Crimes against ethnicities, genders, orientations, or lifestyles all count.

Three examples:

I don't hate Koreans. A Korean spits in my face, so I punch them. Not a hate crime.

I hate Koreans. A Korean spits in my face, so I punch them. Not a hate crime.

I hate Koreans. I punch a Korean because they're Korean. Hate crime.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We’re still under the assumption that all of these definitions exist as outlined in the first reply, so going off that, you’re torturing the AI because it’s an AI. Sounds like a 1:1 match to me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

In the example the sadist is torturing the AI because it's convenient and safe, not because they hate the AI.

If they wanted to hurt real people too, but couldn't because they would get found, then it wouldn't be a hate-crime.

If I was torturing a Korean because a Korean was the only one who responded to my All-You-Can-Eat-Tteok-Bokki-In-My-Basement flier, then I would be torturing them because they're Korean, but it wouldn't be a hate-crime because I'm not doing it because I hate Koreans.