@veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com
2026-10-29 15:29 UTC
Fair point. But I’d say regardless of how much advancement is made in (realistic nowadays) AI, it will never even be close to being a person. It can not even be remotely argued that AI is “12% of a person”. It’s a category difference. Even given our lack of understanding of the meatphysics involved, we know at least enough about the world to come up with an empiric definition of “person” and I’d say the most viable interpretations (“living organism of sufficient and demonstrable complexity characterized by homologation and similarity to the traits of the hominid self”) readily discounts AI for the foreseeable future.
Replies (1)
-
@OwOarchist@pawb.social 2026-10-29 15:38
living organism of sufficient and demonstrable complexity characterized by homologation and similarity to the traits of the hominid self No AI could ever qualify for that, no matter how advanced, because it’s not a ‘living organism’. And you’d definitely want to be more clear about what ‘homologation’ means, because ‘similarity to the traits of the hominid self’ is very vague and it could potentially be argued that current AI already does that. There’s also the huge question of how much complexity is ‘sufficient’…