Chatgpt - Seriously good potential (or just some Internet fun)

Minusorange said:
Why wouldn't a genetically engineered human, not be human ?
Click to expand...

Babies born through IVF aren't "genetically engineered".

Minusorange said:
As I said where do you draw the line where a human created artificially (IVF is artificially creating a human there is nothing natural about it) is no longer a human ?
Click to expand...

Good question, not at IVF, that seems pretty clear.

I mean it seems pretty ridiculous, if you think otherwise then provide an argument for it otherwise it seems rather pointless to bring up babies born via IVF here.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
if you think otherwise then provide an argument for it otherwise it seems rather pointless to bring up babies born via IVF here.
Click to expand...
Well if genetically engineered humans aren't humans because they've been created artificially, it stands to reason that IVF babies aren't human because they too have been created artificially

Just as the CRISPR twins aren't human, going by your logic because they were genetically engineered (if genetic engineering is the bar of not human because artificial)

 
Minusorange said:
Well if genetically engineered humans aren't humans because they've been created artificially, it stands to reason that IVF babies aren't human because they too have been created artificially

Just as the CRISPR twins aren't human, going by your logic because they were genetically engineered (if genetic engineering is the bar of not human because artificial)

Click to expand...

Nope, that's not a positon I hold.

Is it a positon you hold - if so make an argument for it, if not then it seems rather irrelevant to the thread.
 
Minusorange said:
Is not your position ?
Click to expand...

I'm referring to replicants not IVF babies! Re: IVF babies I refer you back to my previous comment: Is it a positon you hold - if so make an argument for it, if not then it seems rather irrelevant to the thread.

You claim to want to avoid a "dowie hole" yet it seems like you're creating one of your own; you've quoted me multiple times now to bang on about IVF babies and as far as I can tell they have little relevance to the thread ergo I'm trying to encourage you to perhaps make an argument if you believe they're not human or perhaps drop it if you don't as I certainly don't hold that positon.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
I'm referring to replicants not IVF babies! Re: IVF babies I refer you back to my previous comment: Is it a positon you hold - if so make an argument for it, if not then it seems rather irrelevant to the thread.

You claim to want to avoid a "dowie hole" yet it seems like you're creating one of your own; you've quoted me multiple times now to bang on about IVF babies and as far as I can tell they have little relevance to the thread ergo I'm trying to encourage you to perhaps make an argument if you believe they're not human or perhaps drop it if you don't as I certainly don't hold that positon.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to understand your position that replicants aren't human because they're artificially created, yet artificially created IVF babies are human, it seems you have the contradiction, both are human, if 1 isn't human because it's artificially created then all artificially created humans must not be human
 
Minusorange said:
I'm trying to understand your position that replicants aren't human because they're artificially created, yet artificially created IVF babies are human, it seems you have the contradiction, both are human, if 1 isn't human because it's artificially created then all artificially created humans must not be human
Click to expand...

I think the only contradiction you're bringing up here is one of semantics over substance, you're calling IVF babies "artificially created" and then somehow lumping them in the same category as replicants without any real reasoning to it.

Replicants are artificially created humanoids, they're artificially created not because sperm was assisted into an egg but because they were literally constructed, they start on day 0 as fully mature, functioning beings able to complete tasks, they have enhanced strength, intelligence etc.. they have a limited life span by design, they're not supposed to have emotions, they can't reproduce (save for Rachel) they're very similar to humans and indeed are based on humans but there are some pretty fundamental differences there!

That classification question aside though the more interesting (and relevant to the thread!) claim being addressed was your assertion that they're not artificial intelligence - they're both intelligent and are entirely artificial, constructed/pieced together as "adults" we even see the guy who creates the eyes in the film.

So human - nope, similar. Artificial Intellgience? Yep, they're artificial, they're literally designed and constructed and they're intelligent, aspects of that intelligence can be enhanced or suppressed where required, given fake childhood memories etc.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
So human - nope, similar. Artificial Intellgience? Yep, they're artificial, they're literally designed and constructed and they're intelligent, aspects of that intelligence can be enhanced or suppressed where required, given fake childhood memories etc.
Click to expand...
They are human by definition "a bipedal primate mammal" just because they're genetically engineered doesn't change that, you can argue that they aren't natural, but they're very much human just with genetic tweaks

Artificial Intelligence definition = "the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages." It's entirely specific to computers, so no you cannot lump replicants into AI unless you wish to push for the definition to be changed so no it's not me arguing semantics but yourself, I'm literally going by the definition
 
Semple said:
Can we not take the IVF discussion to another thread, it's absolutely nothing to do with chatGPT.
Click to expand...

It's ok I've used AI to solve the problem I asked ChatGPT if the replicants would be AI or Human

The replicants from Blade Runner are artificially created beings designed to be physically and mentally indistinguishable from humans. While they may possess advanced artificial intelligence, they are not strictly speaking human as they were created in a laboratory rather than being born from human parents.

The replicants have been designed with a range of emotions, memories, and physical capabilities that allow them to interact with the world in a way that is similar to humans. However, they are not biological organisms and do not have the same kind of internal processes and needs as humans.

Therefore, it is reasonable to consider replicants as a kind of advanced AI with human-like characteristics, rather than humans themselves.
Click to expand...
 
Minusorange said:
They are human by definition "a bipedal primate mammal" just because they're genetically engineered doesn't change that, you can argue that they aren't natural, but they're very much human just with genetic tweaks
Click to expand...

That humans are bipedal primate mammals doesn't mean all bipedal primate mammals are/were (or indeed will be in the future*) humans. (Though for the sake of clarity, I'm referring to homo-sapiens which is what people typically mean when they say humans.)

I'd see replicants as an (artificial) subspecies at best if not a similar but separate species. There are obvious differences as already outlined previously and they (generally) can't reproduce at all, let alone with humans. (Often whether two organisms can breed together is used as a means of classifying whether they're of the same species, in some cases a male and female of different but similar species can reproduce for one generation resulting in infertile offspring).

But again, this is the more interesting bit and more relevant to the thread than that or indeed silly semantic stuff about IVF babies.
Minusorange said:
Artificial Intelligence definition = [...] I'm literally going by the definition
Click to expand...

No, you're cherry-picking a definition then calling it "the" definition when there is certainly no need to limit it to computers and other definitions certainly include machines.

Replicants are designed and assembled, they are genetically engineered machines and they are intelligent, that intelligence can be enhanced (artificially, by design), it can be suppressed (artificially, by design - get rid of emotions for example) and memories can be added (artificially, by design).

I guess this is one of the hangups people have with AI too, sometimes magical thinking is applied to all things biological... but if you're really hung up on AI having to involve a computer then why doesn't the brain of a replicant count, after all, it's been constructed fully formed they don't have a childhood where it developed as they learn; the replicants brain has been engineered/programmed, it can have memories added.

*Suppose someone either speeds up evolution for Chimps or makes replicant chimps that end up being bipedal primate mammals do they become human? Ditto to any mammals.. cows for example too? If so then it seems overly broad.
 
dowie said:
No, you're cherry-picking a definition then calling it "the" definition when there is certainly no need to limit it to computers and other definitions certainly include machines.
Click to expand...

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.
languages.oup.com languages.oup.com

Take it up them, please, I don't care what you have to say I proved you were wrong, deal with it or get Oxford Languages to change their definitions

Lab grown meat, is still meat, lab grown humans are still humans
 
Last edited:
Minusorange said:
Take it up them, please, I don't care what you have to say I proved you were wrong, deal with it or get Oxford Languages to change their definitions
Click to expand...

You've not proved anything here. You came up with some muddled semantic argument about IVF babies which you banged on about over several posts despite it being not having any relevance to anyone's claim/argument.

Replicants are humanoids, they're very similar to humans but there are obvious differences. Replicants are engineered, they can have memories implanted, they have enhanced intelligence, to argue that they're not an example of "artificial" intelligence is very silly indeed. You've cherry-picked a definition from a google dictionary and declared it to be "the" definition of AI but I'd disagree that replicants don't fit that either, why isn't their brain (which was engineered, can have memories added etc..) a computer?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom