> > "Every intelligence is a person." > > > > Is a chatbot an intelligence? I worry that "intelligence" may be more > > broad than we want. > > The OED entry I was going for "An intelligent or rational being, esp. > a spiritual one, or one alien to mankind". But, like, obviously not > the especially portion of that, just the whole thing. I think "an > intelligence" at least implies something that has around the same > level of intelligence as a human. The other wording that was > considered was "natural person", but it's clumsy in the sentence and > potentially excludes too many things.
The first place I checked was Wiktionary, which has: 1. (chiefly uncountable) Capacity of mind, especially to understand principles, truths, facts or meanings, acquire knowledge, and apply it to practice; the ability to comprehend and learn. 2. (countable) An entity that has such capacities. ... I think it's not really clear from that what the bar is. (And before looking it up I wasn't sure either.) I think I'd prefer something narrower but I don't know if it's enough of an issue to affect my vote. I'm more concerned about the "former person" thing. I don't have a nice suggestion for phrasing, but maybe the idea could be that if you ever were a person according to this definition, then you're a person now. (The current "is or ever was" phrasing does this but it's hard to carry over to the new definition.) > > "...with deference toward the good-faith..." > > > > Something about good-faith is a great idea. I wonder if we should be a > > bit more specific, though; someone coming upon this out of the blue may > > not understand what kind of behaviour this is trying to mark as taboo, > > and so may in good faith treat this rule in a way we don't want. > > > > *** > > > > What about something narrower: > > > > * Insert "or part of an organism", as in "Any entity that is or ever > > was an organism, or a part of an organism, generally capable..." etc. > > Maybe there is a better wording. > > > > * And then add a good-faith clause, but more specific than Aris's: the > > person must in good faith consider emself to have an independent > > identity. > > Keep in mind, this is modifying the portion on multi-persons, not the > earlier standard of personhood. So this only applies to when multiple > people want to be treated as one person, the portion reading "A group > of intelligences may also elect to form a single person, as long as > each intelligence only plays as one person at a time" (though we could > consider expanding it to apply to the whole paragraph). Ah, I missed that. > I think your solutions are trying to address a problem that doesn't > really exist. Me pretending to be someone else is not in any > meaningful sense a separate intelligence than me. The situations where > you have actually meaningfully separate intelgences/persons are > already the ones we want to target. Yeah, I don't think it's an issue. I was just reading it wrong and then imagining unlikely consequences. -- Falsifian
