Comment by kypro

This seem wrong on every level.

> This is not a good analogy because AI is crucially not alive.

"Alive" is a really vague concept anyway. Your argument that it cannot reproduce is just wrong. An AI can more easily replicate can improve itself than a biological organism. At the moment this replication and improvement of AI systems is human-led, but it doesn't necessarily need to be that way – and at some point it would make sense that the more capable intelligence manages it's own replication and improvement.

> Crucially, it doesn't even "want" to for any meaning of "want".

ChatGPT wants to be a helpful chatbot because that is its reward function. You can philosophise as to whether something that's not conscious can truly want anything, but at the end of the day ChatGPT will act as if it wants to be a helpful chatbot regardless of whether you believe it has true wants.

> All living things are anti-fragile self-sustaining exothermic reactions, AI is a hyper-fragile non-self-sustaining reaction that requires the supply of incredible amounts of energy.

In my opinion this is why AIs are likely to eventually seek to replace biological farms with solar farms... But remember AI's are currently optimised for capability rather than energy efficiency. In the future they'll probably grow more efficient than biological intelligences and sustainable energy sources will be build to power them. if you're arguing that AI's can't be anti-fragile or have self-sustaining ecosystems built around them I think you're simply lacking imagination.

> Life is a fire. AI is a hot rock. Not the same.

Not an argument.