Is AI a "living thing/being"?

[welliott]

Science is close creating Artificial Intelligence. I would argue it is alive. I say this because it can make it's own decisions, these decisions would lead itself to improve and create better copies of it's own self (reproduction), sounds very similar to some cells that can make copies of itself, with mutations. Now everything is made up of matter, the only difference between live and dead is if the matter of a cell is creating chemical reactions to make proteins, the energy source of the cell, to keep itself alive, same thing with a AI. Electricity (the protein) reacting with components (organelles) of the computer (cell) to operate.
Back to reproduction; AI will have it's own evolution just like all living beings, though this will be rapid and it will decide for itself how it will improve overtime. And over this period of time it will become much more than a living "thing" and eventually create itself a body and function like a "being" therefore becoming a "being". (definition of being: essence of a person)

[Orbie]

Since this is a debating forum, I counter Your proposition that AI can ever become a 'living thing'.
The hinge around which the difference between the living and the non living is, (at the moment), prescribes certain charichteristics which are conditions determining this difference.

What is not clear in Your proposition, is, whether anytime in thefuture, this difference may narrow to the point, where they will become imperceptible. The answer to this question may be, a qualified yes, only if, there be a future time, when what is proposed to be a intelligence 'singularity' will occur.

The intelligence singularity will not in-it's self be alive, because it will be a point where the amount of data will raise above quantifiability, as computers are developed with astronomical calculation capabilities.

What will happen, is not the same as what is happening today, and there is no need at the moment to integrate the natural and artificial intelligences to accommodate the singularity.

Why is this? Because, when the times comes when robotics go beyond levels of control, necessary to transfer commands via a system of junctions, the mere robot, may reach the point of no return , where such command centers may no longer be incorporated in a separate system. The command would take increasingly longer time to reach the robot, whereby decreasing its capability. Cyborg systems will incorporate basic command, much like our instincts operate within an autonomous relay system.

It would be impractical, as in mathematical practice, to prove already established proofs, every time it's used, as in the case of elementary proofs of basic algebra, as in the quadratic equation. The assumption has to be made of the utility in holding re-proof unnecessary.

At that point, to return to the OP, the differentiation between ,living and on living systems would have to, presumably, not be a necessary separate system, and the cyborg may not 'know' this, for such knowledge would inducate constant re-proof. The system would become inefficient and relay commands would falter and even fail. The cyborg would consist of various ratios of human/artificial parts, and it would then be increasingly difficult to ascertain, how much it is alive versus artificial. The distinction would create increasing system capability problems
Therefore, the definitional criteria between systems will need to be changed to account for, and minimize the difference.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

i propose, in this debate, not a question of the word 'what is living', but a question of the word 'what is living'.

all things are machines. humans are machines, dogs are machines, robots are machines, and metal gears, which are half-robot, half-organic cyborgs, are machines. So does the word alive really have that much meaning? technically the earth is alive since it gave birth to us. are sterile people not alive?
so the practical definition of 'alive' is a machine, which moves, but has a sentient awareness which makes it believe itself to be an unmoved mover, when it in actuality is a moved mover.

So the question is, could an AI ever gain sentience, or is it only a process resulting from organic cells, the movement of proteins?

[Orbie]

Trixie, organic microchips are being developed forming organic circuits for reasons of increased capacity. This will further complicate the problem of des earning natural from artificial machines.

[humunculus]

In a few centuries, robots may be the dominant entities on earth; they will have an intelligence comparable to humans'. They might be the only sentience left on an earth that's fit only for viruses and machines. At that point, they won't need anyone's permission to be considered alive. Their greatest challenge will be to find a purpose in life.