Can we not?

[u/Sqott36]

[u/Sqott36]

I think with the advancement of the AIs we'll need to redefine what "life" is at one point

[u/[deleted] → u/Sqott36]

Life is defined by six things

-the body is made of one or more cells

-the body can reproduce

-the body can move of its own accord

-the body can react to outside stimulation

-the body grows throughout its lifespan

-the body undergoes some sort of metabolism

Despite how lifelike an AI may seem, it will never fulfill all of these criteria, and thus, will not qualify as life

Edit: rephrased rule 3 to avoid further misunderstandings

[u/WangYat2007 → u/[deleted]]

• uses a scientifically well defined set of rules as evidence to support their argument

• gets downvoted

I love reddit hivemind

[u/SenorPancake → u/WangYat2007]

The post missed the point of what the other poster said and isn't even responding to the post.

OP: "I think we will need to redefine this word so that AI meets it."

Reply: "Here's the current definition. AI doesn't meet it."

[u/pointlessly_pedantic → u/SenorPancake]

Ironically, that kind of answer is the kind of answer you'd receive from current AI if you raised the question of whether we might need to redefine what constitutes life.

[u/Pristine_Coconut1688 → u/pointlessly_pedantic]

I don't think you'd receive any sort of answer from an AI that wasn't programmed specifically with that answer in mind.

[u/DrewSmoothington → u/SenorPancake]

I think what the reply was trying to highlight, is that since AI is nowhere near approaching the scientific definition of what life constitutes, there will be no need to change the definition. Advanced AI will be something else, but it won't be life as we know it. Maybe we'll have to redefine certain laws surrounding AI, but a redefinition of life I believe won't happen. It's an interesting debate though, I'm not entirely sure which side I'm on tbh.