
Scientists' definition of life excludes AI, but includes embryos - yters
https://mindmatters.ai/2019/05/scientists-definition-of-life-excludes-ai-but-includes-embryos/
======
bloak
This must be propaganda for "intelligent design" or some such philosophy. To
most readers it will make no sense.

~~~
yters
The question is whether AI should be given moral value. The premise is
something has to be alive to gain moral value, and the scientists provide a
definition of life that excludes AI. Hence, AI cannot have moral value.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Not sure why you are calling it
propaganda. I would call this an argument with which the reader can agree or
disagree.

~~~
bloak
It raises a lot of questions, though. What does "moral value" mean? Why should
something be "alive" to gain "moral value"? What has "life" got to do with
"AI"? And what kind of "scientists" would get involved with this kind of
waffle? Perhaps, with the current state of our knowledge, these questions can
not be answered!

~~~
yters
It is a short article, so relies a lot on what someone might find intuitively
plausible and goes from there.

Scientists also have interests outside of their particular field, and might
offer an opinion where their field is relevant to a broader discussion.

The questions may not be answerable, but then again they may. All we can do is
make an attempt and see how it goes.

