From: Samantha Atkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 00:48:00 MST
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> Mark Waser wrote:
>> Lee Corbin wrote:
>>>> "But as for being morally "okay", no, suffering of any form is
>> inadmissible (contradicting rationalizations for suffering in another
>> thread), including our displeasure at having apparently undergone sorrow.
>> I just have to jump in here . . . .
>> Suppose I'm playing a fantasy role-playing game (Dungeons & Dragons or
>> something similar) and one of my characters dies a horrible death. Is
>> morally wrong?
> No. I am reasonably certain that fictionally imagined characters don't
> have qualia. I'm in really, really deep trouble if they do.
So, as AI empowered characters in such games advance, perhaps to
the point of having real qualia, it eventually becomes morally
wrong. Where is this point? How can it be be determined?
If we exist within a sim/VR for the amusement of more powerful
beings then that at least is immoral even though we might be
strictly their creations.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 20 2013 - 04:00:31 MDT