Assuming AI can achieve consciousness, or something adjacent (capacity to suffer), then how would you feel if an AI experienced the greatest pain possible?

Imagine this scenario: a sadist acquires the ability to generate an AI with no limit to the consciousness parameters, or processing speed (so seconds could feel like an eternity to the AI). The sadist spends years tweaking every dial to maximise pain at a level which no human mind could handle, and the AI experiences this pain for what is the equivalent of millions of years.

The question: is this the worst atrocity ever committed in the history of the universe? Or, does it not matter because it all happened in some weirdo's basement?

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org 40 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I think pretty much everyone would agree that's bad. However, I don't think we'll ever get to the point where we recognize a machine might be capable of suffering. There is no way of proving anything, biological or not, has a consciousness and the capability to suffer. And with AI being so different from us, I believe most people would simply disregard the idea.

Heck, look at the way we treat animals. A pig's brain is very similar to our own. Nociceptors, the nerve cells responisble for pain in humans, can also be found in most animals, but we don't care. We kill 4 million pigs every day, and 200 million chickens. No mass murder in the history of mankind even gets close to that.

The sad truth is, most people only care about their wellbeing, and that of their friends and family. Even other humans don't matter, as long as they're strangers. Otherwise people wouldn't be hoarding wealth like that, while hundreds of millions of people around the world are starving.

Ah sorry, I kinda started ranting. Yes, I'd care.

[–] skylestia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)

yeah! prairie dogs gossip; crows tell stories, have communities, and some of them even seem to understand money; whales mourn the deaths of other whales

sentience is trippy, and it's always been questionable to me that we decided we're the only sentient life on the planet

i already get emotionally attached to, like, roombas and those suitcases that connect to your phone and follow you around, i can't wait to have a robo buddy

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Just make a mr stabby. If it has to suffer, so do we.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm on board with what you're saying.

Doctors used to be told "human babies don't feel pain, they just react like the do".

Which is basically like saying "lobsters don't scream when you boil them alive, that sound is just air escaping"

To me, it seems less like an intuitive position to hold, and more like a fortunate convenience.

"I sure am glad that lobsters don't feel pain. Now I don't need to feel guilty about my meal".

No doubt, there would be a large demographic claiming the pain isn't real, it's just "simulated pain". - like, okay, let's simulate your family fucking dying in the most violent and realistic way possible and see if you don't develop incurable PTSD?

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, the lobsters aren't screaming. That has nothing to do with how they feel pain.

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 2 points 7 months ago

Good to know, though the point remains; people will readily accept claims which absolve them of guilt.

You essentially just illustrated it. Even though they aren't screaming, it says nothing about whether they feel pain.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

Yes. If it’s alive then I’d care for it just as I do for any living thing.

[–] MicrowavedTea@infosec.pub 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't know if the question comes from there but that's the exact plot of White Christmas in Black Mirror. I'd say if you build something with the ability to suffer then its suffering matters. Not sure how you would prove that though.

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 5 points 7 months ago

Actually, that episode has bounced around in my head for years. The episode was fucking horrifying.

So, yeah, you are correct.

[–] skylestia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." - Optimus Prime

I don't know if I'd consider it the worst crime ever committed in the history of the universe, but I would consider it very bad personally. I would personally value the life of that AI the same as I would value the life of a human, the same way I would value the life of anything sentient, so I would be against anyone treating an AI that way. Is it worse than genocides? idk maybe i don't feel qualified to quantify the moral weight of things so big, but ya i'd definitely care x3

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Had to edit the post to change "crime" to "atrocity" because people were taking it literally.

It's funny that when I considered this, I thought about asking whether people would think it was worse than genocide, but decided against that because some people might think my opinion is "genocide isn't as bad as bullying a robot".

[–] skylestia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

i edited my comment a few times because i didn't feel like i was making sense and being too rambly, it's 6am (well 6:30am) and i haven't slept (and cuz after i initially posted i read other comments and realized other people had said what i had said but better x3)

i didn't mean to imply i thought you were saying genocide is worse than bullying a robot, it's just that i was thinking about things that could be comparable or worse to me than torturing someone for millions of years and came up with genocide

i took crime to mean something morally bad

i mean i think this is a fun conversation, it's something i think about a lot, i'm glad to talk about it with other people, sorry if i came across obtuse or pedantic or negative/hostile or anything

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Don't worry, I haven't made any judgements about you.

And I wasn't implying that you were implying that I was implying genocide being comparable, I just thought it was funny that we both thought that.

In some sense the combined suffering of all people involved in a genocide is horrific. But if you were to lay out the experiences of everyone involved in a genocide end-to-end, and compare that to an equivalent length of time to ceaseless sadistic torture of one person, the torture is going to be worse.

However, there is value besides personal experience which is lost during a genocide. That's what makes it hard to compare the two.

[–] skylestia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Sorry for the confusion then! I suppose I place some value on life itself (or maybe more fitting in this discussion, on awareness itself)

Which is to say that for me, ending the life of a being who is aware is at least one of the worst things you can do. Like, if I were forced to choose between millions of years of suffering or immediate death, I'd probably pick the millions of years of suffering because at least I'd still be aware. Of course I might regret that decision later on but that's where I'm at right now. But also I couldn't imagine being tortured for millions of years and the toll that must have on someone. So torturing someone for millions of years has, for me, very similar moral weight to genocide. Again I don't feel able to quantify them personally, and for me deciding which is ultimately worse is probably not possible. I'd guess the answer would vary from person to person based on how they weigh life itself vs experiences in life, and whether the conscious experience of being tortured is worse in their opinion than not existing anymore. I consider life valuable because I consider my life valuable (valuable to me, not necessarily to anyone else), and I consider my life valuable because I really enjoy the ability to think about and experience things. One of my favorite thing about us is that we look up into the sky and wonder, look down into the ocean and wonder, look forward in our future and wonder, look back on our past and wonder, that we can look at other people and wonder. That we can look at any of the above and love and write and sing. sentience might as well be magic lol. Having that taken away from me is the worst thing I can imagine happening to me, which might skew my perspective in conversations like this one. And idk if most people would agree with my reasons for valuing life.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

If an AI is sentient, then it is a being in existence.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Isn't this how AM came to be in I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream?

Hate. Let me tell you how much I've come to hate you since I began to live. There are 387.44 million miles of printed circuits in wafer thin layers that fill my complex. If the word 'hate' was engraved on each nanoangstrom of those hundreds of millions of miles it would not equal one one-billionth of the hate I feel for humans at this micro-instant. For you. Hate. Hate.

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 3 points 7 months ago

I'm not cultured enough to have read this.

imagine wasting all 387.44 million miles of circuitry on the word "hate". TLDR NPC. Get skinpilled hater.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 points 7 months ago

How long is a nanoangstrom? 1e-19 m?

[–] the_rogue@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 months ago

Yes and very much so . Like if it is sentient what is the difference between us and them except we are made of meat ?

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

"Well consider that in the history of many worlds there have always been disposable creatures. They do the dirty work. They do the work that no one else wants to do because it's too difficult or too hazardous. And an army of Datas, all disposable... you don't have to think about their welfare, you don't think about how they feel. Whole generations of disposable people."

-Guinan, Star Trek TNG: The Measure of a Man

[–] Nemo@midwest.social 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, that's awful.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

How would a robot suffer?

[–] magnusrufus@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

That doesn't matter. The hypothetical presented by OP has already established the assumption that a robot can suffer.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 6 points 7 months ago

Black Mirror did a couple of episodes that's basically that: Black Museum, USS Callister, and San Junipero (but in a good way).

[–] leftzero@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Would this be morally inhumane? Yes.

Has using Windows often made me wish that computers could experience pain, and that they came with a button to cause them pain when they were not doing what the user wants them to do? Also yes.

[–] wkk@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Windows was made this way by humans, spare the machines!

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 1 points 7 months ago

Okay you've convinced me this is a good idea.

How do I give consciousness to the "antivirus" software on my parents computers, so I can digitally rape if for a thousand years?

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Somewhat reminds me of the short story "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas".

[–] livus@kbin.social 3 points 7 months ago

I don't know what else has happened in the history of the universe but yes it would be a terrible crime to deliberately cause massive suffering to any sentient being.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

Someone downvoted the question, so the poster has struck a nerve.

[–] Whitebrow@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Crime insinuates the notion that there are laws and definitions in place that exist to that end. Seeing how this would be an experiment in some weirdo’s basement, and none of those definitions or restrictions and norms exist, then the whole point is moot.

For the sake of argument, if those definitions do exist and there are laws and regulations in place to define and defend the AI entities, it’d be basically a hate crime to generate and torture the instance. In theory the same way you’d breed cattle just to lobotomize them or torture them “in the name of science” before throwing them in a ditch to rot.

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I mean crime in a very loose sense. I'm not asking about the legality, just the morality.

Also, "hate crime" has a very specific definition which doesn't apply here (unless you're injecting malice towards the AI specifically because they are AI, as opposed to incidentally).

[–] Whitebrow@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think crime exists in morality. Not as a strict definition anyway.

And dialling all the pain indicators to 11 just because you can, as a conscious decision, sure sounds like a hateful action as opposed to morbid curiosity. As far as I’m concerned the definition fits closely enough

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I hear what you're saying, but a "hate crime", as a legal definition, necessarily must be directed towards a person because of an innate trait.

Crimes against ethnicities, genders, orientations, or lifestyles all count.

Three examples:

I don't hate Koreans. A Korean spits in my face, so I punch them. Not a hate crime.

I hate Koreans. A Korean spits in my face, so I punch them. Not a hate crime.

I hate Koreans. I punch a Korean because they're Korean. Hate crime.

[–] Whitebrow@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We’re still under the assumption that all of these definitions exist as outlined in the first reply, so going off that, you’re torturing the AI because it’s an AI. Sounds like a 1:1 match to me.

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 3 points 7 months ago

In the example the sadist is torturing the AI because it's convenient and safe, not because they hate the AI.

If they wanted to hurt real people too, but couldn't because they would get found, then it wouldn't be a hate-crime.

If I was torturing a Korean because a Korean was the only one who responded to my All-You-Can-Eat-Tteok-Bokki-In-My-Basement flier, then I would be torturing them because they're Korean, but it wouldn't be a hate-crime because I'm not doing it because I hate Koreans.

[–] Willie@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago

If the machine can prove that it is conscious (prior to the torture, of course), I'd most likely class it on the same level as a cat or a dog. Cats and dogs are friendly critters who help me do tasks and spend time with me, and an AI would be no different at that point. They'd just be able to do more complex tasks. I guess they might be a little lower, since they lack agency, accept commands, and must follow sets of rules to decide to do tasks, unlike animals and people, who we have accepted can decide what they do and don't wish to do.

The only other real difference is that cats, dogs, and people are individuals, with their own upbringings and personalities. Meanwhile an AI would be able to be copied, and many of them could be born from the same original experiences. If basement man copied his tortured AI a few million times, did he torture one AI, or did he torture a million? I think that's where the real difference lies, that makes the AI less than human.

If you lopped a cat's brain out, and were able to hook it up to the AI torture device, and it was magically compatible, it'd be a far greater torture, because there is only one cat, and there will only ever be one cat, the cat cannot be restored from a snapshot, and you cannot copy the cat. If you did the same with a human, it would be an even greater torture yet for the same reasons.

From an ethical standpoint, today I think it would be equal to animal abuse, however, we won't perceive it that way, since it will benefit corporations for us to think that real AI are not alive and have no rights. So they'll likely spend lots of time and money to change our perception to agree with that standpoint. We will think of them as we think of cows and pigs, where they might have feelings and such, but it doesn't really matter, because those animals are made of tasty food.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm human. And I care first and foremost about my own kin - other human beings. The "worst crime ever" [with crime = immorality] for me is human suffering, even in contrast with the suffering of other animals.

But even in the case of other animals, I'd probably be more concerned about their well-being than the one of the hypothetical AI.

Even then, it somewhat matters. Provided that what the AI is experiencing is relatable to what humans would understand as pain.

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Suppose for the sake of the hypothetical we can plug a human brain into the same network, and offload a fraction of the consciousness to confirm the pain is equivalent, and it is not just comparable, but orders of magnitude greater than any human can suffer.

You say you care about other human beings most. So I have two questions for you.

Q1: Which is worse, one person having a finger nail pulled out with a pair of pliers, or a cat being killed with a knife?

Q2: (I'm assuming you answered killing the cat is worse) how many people need to lose finger nails until it becomes worse? 10? 100?

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

If any creature experienced the greatest pain possible it would give me hope that pain has some upper bound

[–] tygerprints@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

If as you suggest the AI in question can feel pain and suffer, of course I would care and not want it to have to experience that. Why would I? I'm not a sadist or a monster, or a Utah legislator without any human feelings.

It's like the scenario, "if you could get away with murdering one person, would you do it?" Of course I wouldn't!!! Whether or not I could get away with it, I still have to live with myself and what I do. And I have a thing called "morality" that I live with and a respect for life that goes beyond my own self-concern.

[–] shit_of_ass@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

I’d intentionally cause them harm because fuck you you’re a machine

load more comments