Comment by zozbot234
5 days ago
> No one considers human-made art or human-made monuments to be human.
How can art not be human, when it's a human creation? That seems self-contradictory.
> They can't vote...
They get a vote where it matters, though. For example, the presence of a historic building can be the decisive "vote" on whether an area can be redeveloped or not. Why would we ever do that, if not out of a sense that the very presence of that building has acquired some sense of indirect moral worth?
There is no general rule that something created by an X is therefore an X. (I have difficulty in even understanding the state of mind that would assert such a claim.)
My printer prints out documents. Those documents are not printers.
My cat produces hair-balls on the carpet. Those hairballs are not cats.
A human creating an artifact does not make that artifact a human.
But that's not the argument GP made. They said that there's nothing at all that's human about art or such things, which is a bit like saying that a cat's hairballs don't have something vaguely cat-like about them, merely because a hairball isn't an actual cat.
So presumably what you are saying is something along the lines of, "A human creating an artifact does make that artifact human", i.e. "A human creating an artifact does make that artifact a human artifact."
But does that narrow facet have a bearing on the topic of "AI rights" / morality of AI use?
Is it immoral to drive a car or use a toaster? Or to later recycle (destroy) them?
Maybe you could give us your definition of "human"?
I wouldn't say my trousers are human, created by one though they might be