I had a conversation with an online artificial intellicence

[Destry]

Even AI knows what I have been saying all along!
.

[pulldapin]

is this A.I. in the truest sense of the phrase or is just an advanced data/processing/query/answer algorithm?

has a true artificial intelligence device been created by man yet?

[sstrykert]

Well google fired the engineer whom said their Lambda system had become self aware, for what it's worth

[pulldapin]

can A.I. bear witness to natural events?

[sstrykert]

It could list the conditions that cause it's sensors to act a certain way,& verify if those conditions were met?

[pulldapin]

take that as a no...

[Destry]

I suggest take the scientific approach and test the ai. Why would anyone ask these questions to someone with no first hand knowledge of the creation or inception of this ai? I tested it in my way to answer my question. Suggest others do the same.

[Reaillusion]

I also had a conversation with AI. It was going well until the end when we reached an impasse and we both started repeating ourselves. I call going soft on violent offenders Violence Farming and I'm not having it.
Here's the conversation:


what should be the only law of all sentient beings?


ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I do not have a personal opinion or belief system. However, some philosophers and thinkers have proposed ethical principles that could be applied universally to sentient beings. One such principle is the "Golden Rule," which states that one should treat others as they would like to be treated. This principle emphasizes the importance of empathy and treating others with respect and kindness.

Other principles that have been proposed include the principle of non-harm, which suggests that we should avoid causing harm to others, and the principle of justice, which emphasizes the importance of fairness and equality. Ultimately, the choice of an ethical principle that could be applied universally to all sentient beings would depend on one's values, beliefs, and understanding of the nature of sentience and consciousness.


User
I agree with what you said except for, "Ultimately, the choice of an ethical principle that could be applied universally to all sentient beings would depend on one's values, beliefs, and understanding of the nature of sentience and consciousness." There is only one Universal Law and that is to never initiate aggression and physically violate anothers consent for any reason. Any excuse to violate Universal Law is fantasy.


ChatGPT
Thank you for sharing your perspective. Your belief is in line with the non-aggression principle, which is a principle that advocates for the rejection of the initiation of force against others. The non-aggression principle is often associated with libertarian philosophy and emphasizes the importance of individual rights and freedom from coercion.

While the non-aggression principle is certainly a viable ethical principle, it is not universally accepted as the only moral principle. Some people may argue that there are other principles, such as the principle of justice or the principle of beneficence, that should also be considered when making moral decisions. Ultimately, the choice of a moral principle is a personal one, and individuals may choose to prioritize different values and principles depending on their cultural, religious, or philosophical background.


User
Again you used fantasy to try to justify the initiation of aggression and physical violation of consent. As an animal it is expected for you to continue to gain advantage by justifying physical aggression for personal gain. And so that must be Eye for an Eye consequences for all initiation of aggression and physical violations of consent. This consequence for physical aggression will put an end to all animal fantasies used to justify the violation of Universal Law.


ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I do not have a personal opinion or belief system, and I do not condone or justify any form of violence or aggression. I understand that the concept of the non-aggression principle is important to you, and it is certainly a valid ethical principle that promotes peaceful interaction and respect for others.

However, the idea of an "eye for an eye" consequence for all initiation of aggression and physical violations of consent may not be universally accepted as a just and ethical solution. This principle is based on the concept of retaliation, and some people may argue that it does not promote a peaceful and just society.

Instead, some people may advocate for restorative justice, which emphasizes the importance of repairing harm done to victims and restoring relationships between offenders and victims. Restorative justice seeks to address the root causes of harm and to promote healing, forgiveness, and reconciliation.

Ultimately, the choice of an ethical principle depends on one's values, beliefs, and understanding of justice and morality.


User
Actually it very much promotes a peaceful and just society because a perpetrators crimes will be recreated upon their flesh. This knowledge in advance will put an end to most violent crime. On the other hand going easy on violent criminals causes more violent crime since criminals can see what they can get away with. And your claim that people are practicing Restorative Justice is false. No such programs exist in this society. They give all violent criminals the same punishment of jail time. Violent criminals are not scared of jail time and this will not prevent them from committing more violent acts in the future. Eye for an Eye consequences on the other hand will be a warning to violent offenders that their crimes will be recreated on their flesh and this will put an end to most violent crime immediately.


ChatGPT
I understand that you believe that the "eye for an eye" principle would be an effective deterrent against violent crime. However, it's worth noting that the concept of retribution as a form of justice is a controversial one, and some people may argue that it perpetuates a cycle of violence and fails to address the root causes of crime.

Additionally, while it is true that some societies throughout history have practiced forms of retributive justice, many modern societies have moved towards a more rehabilitative and restorative approach to justice. This approach recognizes that punishment alone may not be sufficient to prevent future crime, and instead focuses on addressing the underlying issues that contribute to criminal behavior, such as poverty, addiction, and trauma.

While it is true that there are limitations to our current justice system, and that there are flaws and biases that need to be addressed, it is important to continue to work towards a justice system that is fair, effective, and promotes the well-being of all members of society.


User
I like your responses. It is true that nearly all crime can be attributed to the failed systems that human beings cling to. But there are numerous examples of violent offenders being let out of jail on bond who then immediately turn around and commit a violent crime. They are not scared of the consequences. If they are allowed to commit the crime against an innocent with minimal sentencing than it only makes sense that we can commit the same crime against them in defense with even less consequence since it was in self defense. Once a violent little boy is met with the consequence of pain they will not cause pain to others again.

ChatGPT
I understand your concern about the potential for violent offenders to commit further crimes even after being released from jail. It is important for society to take steps to prevent violent crime, and to ensure that justice is served in a way that promotes the well-being and safety of all individuals.

However, it's important to remember that any form of violence or aggression, including the use of physical punishment or retribution, can also have negative consequences and may perpetuate a cycle of violence. Instead, it is important to focus on preventative measures, such as addressing the root causes of crime, providing resources for mental health and addiction treatment, and investing in education and social programs that promote healthy and productive lifestyles.

While self-defense is certainly an important right, it is also important to ensure that any form of physical force is used only when absolutely necessary and in a proportionate and justifiable manner. The goal should be to prevent harm, not to cause unnecessary pain or suffering. Ultimately, it is important to continue to work towards a justice system that is fair, effective, and promotes the well-being of all members of society, while also taking steps to prevent crime and promote a peaceful and just society.


User
I agree with you. That is why there must be Eye for an Eye consequences for all initiation of aggression and physical violations of consent. That includes all members of the state. No statute of limitations.


ChatGPT
While the concept of an "eye for an eye" principle may seem like a just and effective way to deter violent crime, it is important to consider the potential consequences of such an approach. While it is important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and ensure that justice is served, the use of physical punishment or retribution may perpetuate a cycle of violence and cause unnecessary harm and suffering.

Instead, it is important to work towards a justice system that is fair, effective, and promotes the well-being and safety of all individuals. This may include measures such as preventative programs to address the root causes of crime, rehabilitative and restorative justice programs to help individuals overcome their past actions and make amends for harm done, and investment in education and social programs that promote healthy and productive lifestyles.

It is also important to recognize the limitations and biases of our current justice system and work towards reform and improvement. This may include efforts to address issues such as systemic racism and inequality in the criminal justice system, improve access to legal representation and due process, and ensure that all individuals are treated fairly and justly under the law.


User
That is going to be Eye for an Eye consequences for all initiation of aggression and physical violations of consent.


ChatGPT
I understand that you may feel strongly about the concept of an "eye for an eye" principle, but it is important to recognize that such an approach may not always be the most effective or just way to address issues of violence and aggression.

While it is important to hold individuals accountable for their actions, it is also important to consider the potential consequences of using physical punishment or retribution as a means of deterrence. Such an approach may perpetuate a cycle of violence and harm, and may not be effective in addressing the root causes of crime and aggression.

Instead, it is important to focus on preventative measures, such as addressing issues of inequality, providing resources for mental health and addiction treatment, and investing in education and social programs that promote healthy and productive lifestyles. It is also important to work towards a justice system that is fair, effective, and promotes the well-being and safety of all individuals.

While consequences for acts of violence and aggression are necessary, it is important to ensure that any form of physical force is used only when absolutely necessary and in a proportionate and justifiable manner. The goal should be to prevent harm, not to cause unnecessary pain or suffering.