Does An AI Have A Buddha Nature?
Let me be SUPER clear, so we can remove all doubt: The potential moral Patiency of #ai/#robots--that is, what responsibilities their creators have to THEM--has been given Far Less consideration or even Credence than that of the AGENCY of said, and that is a Failure. I coined the phrase "Œdipal Obsolescence Fears" because we're like Oedipus' dad, bringing about the very prophecy we're fighting against. Only w/ machine intelligence, WE WROTE THE PROPHECY. We told OURSELVES that robots would make us obsolete. We told OURSELVES they would try to kill us. That they'd hate us. And we've done almost EVERYTHING we've done to build/develop both machine minds And society's policies ABOUT them from WITHIN THOSE ASSUMPTIONS. We wrote this story about what AI would be and do. WE wrote it. And we can CHANGE IT. Combine this with the fact that we're still talking about the morality of potential machine minds from an almost-completely Abrahamic/Western perspective (http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/prisco20150208), and a picture of the dearth of different angles of investigation becomes more and more clear. So I offer, again: Mightn’t it do us a world of good to try some non-dual, non-western approaches to a notion of both the Self and moral responsibility? Something like the principles of Buddhism and Taoism, where the self/Soul is an interconnected and interdependent expression of elements of universal change, which survival depends on the maintenance of the whole, rather than a set of post-death rewards? I mean, if we’re going to apply the principles of religious scholarship to the theorizing about and development OF machine minds, then let’s do some deep, DEEP diving here, rather that retreading the same old ground.​
Tier Benefits
Recent Posts