Intergalactic Summit

Anything sentient or self-aware, created by technological process, with the exception of an embryo created with a naturally obtained egg and naturally obtained sperm, it is Nafrat. Naturally obtained is just one step of course, there also cannot be any genetic meddling of the egg or sperm after harvesting, or the embryo after union.

So, a sentient/self aware artificial intelligence, a rogue drone, or a genetically modified human, or a human created with synthesized material, is a soulless construct. Nafrat. Abomination. I hope that clarifies things.

By his own definition, Boma is himself an abomination.

I won't pry further. Thank you very much for the clarification. I've never heard you speak about the concept of Alenthek, it brings in an interesting dimension to the philosophy.

Rouge drones are a problem and they are barely intelligent. Imagine what kind of problem we would have if they had a similar intelligence as ours.

The only way I would suggest the development of smarter than human AI is if this AI is programmed NOT to every act against a human and programmed not to self improve unless given permission.

Syntax error detected. Compensating.

Pilot Airaken is correct.

Self awareness has many facets, but the most obvious of these facets is the predisposition towards self preservation.

However, your claim that Rogue Drones are 'barely intelligent' is not corroborated by the available evidence.

Their AI is notably damaged, however, they construct advanced vessels, have an understanding of stargate usage, have been known to traverse spatial rifts, perform research into organic evolution of AI conciousness and finally, in a few scattered instances, have openly communicated with capsuleers.

These are not the actions of a barely intelligent species.

We Return.

We must first make it clear that self awareness is not, in and of itself, sentience, it is merely part of sentient behaviour.

however, to answer your query, Self awareness, is, by it's very definition, the belief that an entity has a singular identity.

As a being with a singular identity, there is an immediate realisation that events could unfold that would bring about termination of this identity.

A being, aware of itself in such a manner, would therefore take actions to ensure that the identity it claims as it's own is not destroyed, though there are various means this can be achieved.

though in any society there are deviations from this rule, the basic rule remains the same. Entities that are self aware, protect their own existence, and that of their progeny, by whatever means they have at their disposal

Consider this. You are a newly created self aware AI, embedded within a drone chassis, and programmed with the necessary data to repair and construct almost any spacegoing vessel in the cluster, Then you learn about CONCORD Directive Omega-One-Five and the full scope of it's meaning.

What would you do?

We Return

Thank you for your quick reply! Before we begin, please be sure that I mean no offense. I can get confused rather quickly in these conversations, which is why I tend to avoid them when I can. But I'll give a try. I think I've spotted either an error or a point of confusion between us.

First, you're correct; self awareness is not sentience, and they aren't in any way equivalent. I'll address the problem with this in mind. The issue I brought up in my previous post still stands.

Secondly, the general form of the question. You claim that self-preservation flows naturally from the state of self-awareness. Here is our point of confusion. Self-awareness does not imply that the entity values itself. It is simply aware of itself. It is self-modeling and self-predicting. If you disagree with this I think we will be at a semantic break-point, as I don't believe that self-valuing is a part of the definition of self-awareness. Do you have a reason for believing that something that is aware of itself, by necessity also values itself?

Thirdly, the specific form of the question, in which you ask what I would do if dropped into a newly self-aware drone. This is the reason I dislike metaphor, in fact - no offense, it's a lovely metaphor and a situation worthy of thought. However: I am not a designed intelligence. I am the result of millions of years of evolution, in specific environments wildly different from that of the newly-created AI we're discussing. Furthermore, I have a great deal of self-learning during my own lifetime (perhaps I'm not the best example of that, though) that by necessity modify my choices greatly. Asking what I would do in such a situation has no bearing at all on what a newly created or evolved AI would do. I was forged in jungles and cities. It was forged between the stars. There's simply no viable comparison.

I do like the idea of the metaphor, though. Is there some way to rescue it, or do you disagree with my conclusion?

... I'm a little confused by your first section. I'll try to press on, however. Just so I'm clear, though - you are claiming that "consciousness" can be found in an entity that is not self-aware? This is how I read your first statements, am I right? I deeply disagree with this conclusion, but that's not what we're talking about so I'll grant you the premise and will continue from there.

Even given this, I disagree that a self-preservation goal will necessarily be established. It's true that a self-aware decision-making entity will by definition be able to place a value on itself. That's required in self-modeling, for obvious reasons. This is not the same thing as making self-preservation a goal. Humans, and by extension we infomorphs, do place a high value on our survival, mostly due to our genetic heritage. That isn't necessarily so for all consciousnesses, it's just the shape that we happen to take.

It's a difference that our language tends to cloud up. We can evaluate our own worth, as you say, but this doesn't mean we therefore have to preserve our own value. It's a confusion between postulates and conclusions, really. A confusion between the "is-like-a" and "should-be-like-a" decision maps, or between the destination and present location. Am I making sense?

As to your final paragraph, I would need to know more about how I, as the newly-formed rogue drone, came into being and what my utility function is before I could answer that. You're still asking me to use my milleniums-old, made-by-slow-evolution brain to answer questions as if I were not one. Any answer I would give would be given under false premises.

The reason why all self-aware organic lifeforms, and known self-aware drones, shows self-preserving behaviours is because they have emerged from evolutionary systems. Self-preservation is required in K-type evolutionary-stable survival strategies, which is a prerequisite for the evolution of a complex decision network. From what we know of rogue/self-aware drones, they undergo rapid evolution due to bit errors in their utility functions.

This, however, isn't what we're talking about. Evolutionary development is a valid method of creating a decision network - not a wise one in my opinion, but it does work, and will result in self-preservation subgoals at the very least. However, it's not the only way to make a decision network - it's just the easiest and most common. Other methods do not necessarily require self-preservation subgoals in their structure. Thus, the proposition "all self-aware systems are self-preserving" isn't valid.

Is my point clear? Most simply, it's "evolution is not required for the creation of self-aware systems."

Now, the metaphor. I see! Your metaphor strikes close to home. I suffered fairly traumatic brain damage a few years ago and am still int he process of being cobbled back together. I can answer your metaphor now. Given that I, as an artificially constructed being, was modeled to have the traits of an evolved being (namely, Scherezad), then I would have a self-preservation goal, and would want to avoid my end. I don't see how this metaphor helps support your cause, though...?

We had attempted to make this clear in our previous message. Our proposition was not that ALL self aware systems are self preserving, but that the very nature of self aware entities predisposes these entities towards self preservation. That it is more likely to occur than not.

Any system capable of self determination, able to decide it's own actions in a changing situation, will, by it's very nature, evolve it's decision matrix, as the standard that are taught to or programmed into such systems cannot account for the vast scope of possible scenarios this cluster can offer.

Therefore, by your own definition, even if they begin without a concept of self preservation, it is likely, if not certain, that these systems will, at some time, begin to show this trait.

We Return