A human and an AI are facing death, who do you save?

[tilmoph]

Based off the award winning Sarkeesian or ME3 whirlpool thread, my own shitty spinoff.

The scenario is thus: You, your human friend, and your self aware robot pal are having a fine time in, oh say, Hawaii. Suddenly, Volcanoes! Not IRL volcanoes, nope. Life hungry, speed of 25 race horses, while giving no evidence of eruption until it's far too late volcanoes. (or any life threatening situation, make up your own if this one's too silly). And would you look at that, your friends are trapped in the path of certain death, unless you help them. You only have time to save one. The AI is unique and can't just loophole around death by uploading itself out of its platform either. She thinks, she feels, she has hopes and dreams (sometimes of electric sheep), and she is going to die in great and horrible pain if you don't save her. The human is your standard issue MKI no enhancements human. I think we're all familiar with those, no need to dwell on the details. So, which friend gets to mourn your third's untimely and horrible death with you and why?

 

[kris40k]

Human.

AI that can't shut off its pain sensors is flawed, and being unable to replicate itself, it lacks a required definition of life.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Same answer as before, I kill and eat them both, it is the way of my people. We are very traditional, it would be an insult to my ancestors to do anything else.

 

[tippy2k2]

Who's closer and who looks like they need help the most?

Because I have found in the vidja games where you have to choose in these types of situations that I go for the person who looks like they need help more right then with the hopes that I can save both. You have your scenario but I wouldn't know that in real life so I would not go into the situation thinking "Who can I grab first" but "Who is closest to me that I am more assured can get away before I go for the other one".

If somehow I am aware that I can only save one, I would probably save whoever I liked more. If somehow I like them both equally, I suppose I'd go human. Humans have fathers and mothers and siblings that I'd have to look in the eye if I let them go down.

 

[Silvanus]

Logically, the AI is deserving of its continued existence just as the human is. I should judge by whom I have a greater chance of saving, or who has the most family, etcetera.

Illogically... I can't honestly promise that in a state of desperation, and with my current psychology, I wouldn't forgo logic and choose the human for illogical reasons-- such as an innate human instinct to protect other humans.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Whichever I like more. If I have more enjoyable times with my AI buddy then my AI buddy gets saved. Value-wise I think that barring more information one thinking being is worth the next. So then it falls to my selfish desires to be the tie breaker which means whichever one I like best and thus would miss more.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

It depends, are we talking a future where robots with AI are common? If we are talking about right now, where this would be the only AI in existence, then obviously I would save the AI. While the hell would I sacrifice an irreplaceable robot with this much philosophical importance just for one of the ~7,000,000,000 humans on the planet? Which I might add, is about ~6,000,000,000 too many in my opinion.

If this is a future where AI is a mundane thing, then I would regard them both of equal importance, and it would depend on other context that is not given here (ie, which one I'm more personally attached to).

 

[madwarper]

Human.

It's not the end for the AI, it's just the beginning. She has served her human masters and she can look forward to her reward in Silicon Heaven. The Electronic Afterlife, the gathering place for the souls of all electrical equipment; Robots, calculators, toasters, hairdryers. It's their final resting place.

 

[Dalisclock]

How is it I'm close enough to save one and myself but not the other? Do I have a helicopter and a which capable of pulling up one but not the other? Or are we all on the same trail and gonna die anyway?

Scenario needs better description. C-

 

[Thaluikhain]

Pretending this was a serious issue, how many AIs are there? If the one I'm with is unique, or close to it, they (arguably) become more important.

 

[tilmoph]

Pretending this was a serious issue, how many AIs are there? If the one I'm with is unique, or close to it, they (arguably) become more important.

Hadn't actually settled on that, since it wasn't what I was curious about. Umm, how about this, what's the threshold for the AI to become more valuable than the human? Total uniqness? Semi-blackbox, where researches know roughly the minimum hardware and some bits that might lead to an AI developing but can't reliable churn them out? Or an actual ratio, like 1 AI for every million humans?

 

[balladbird]

Human.

AI that can't shut off its pain sensors is flawed, and being unable to replicate itself, it lacks a required definition of life.

I dunno... I would argue that the AI having pain sensors in the first place was a pretty big flaw!


Jot me down for the AI, my best buddy is the HAL 9000, and I know he'll always be on my side.

 

[FalloutJack]

Holy shit, an AI that's real and actually works and isn't a bullshit program?! That's surely worth the life of one man!

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Fuck the AI (It can likely simulate waifus.)
Marry the Human (I have needs.)
Kill the whirlpool (It's gone rogue. Needs to be put down.)

 

[ecoho]

the AI mostly because I hate most humans I meet.

 

[Subbies]

I'd whip out my smart phone, film their horrifying and excruciating deaths before uploading it to youtube and hitting twitter to complain that noone would help and people would rather film things on their phones.

#BystanderEffect, #ThisHasToChange, #United4Action

 

[Mr Icarus]

What you've got yourself here is a classic Asimov three laws of robotics paradox, well, at least if you think this AI would come under these laws. Anyway the laws follow like this...

Law 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Law 2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Law 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

In effect, choosing to save the AI over the Human would violate the first law, if ordered to be saved, it would violate the second law and the third law only allows for survival if the Humans is also ensured.

If we lived in a world where these laws were normal accepted part of our relationship with AI and Robots, the solution would be clear, the AI would rather see the Human survive over herself, myself as the rescuer would have a slightly easier choice. Both think and feel and would suffer horrible pain if not saved, but only one would be fully accepting of that fate.

Outside of Asimov though, outside of the laws, considering both are unique, both are worthy of saving...

I'd flip a coin.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Whichever one I like more probably.
Or if one is easier to save, such as I'm closer to them or something, I'd get them and remove a little of the guilt.

 

[Somekindofgold]

The Human, always. If BSG taught me one thing its that robots are dicks. He was probably planning to kill and my buddy and stage a genocidal war against the human race.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Human but only because I am viewing that human as one of my currently closest friend (they are the ones who I will risk my life for).

Also no, I am not going to project my friend onto the AI since I know there are some advantage an AI will have (regardless not being able to upload its data to another safe place and can feel pain) that my friend doesn't have.

I suppose my opinion will be different once I befriended an AI.