In an increasingly de-humanised world we will delve into the intriguing question of what defines reasonableness in different forms of intelligence. How do we differentiate between the rationality of humans, often considered a reasonable primate, and that of an artificial intelligence, perceived as a reasonable being?
Some Key Points of Discussion:
- Defining Reasonableness: Perspectives from Philosophy and Cognitive Science.
- Comparative Analysis: Human Rationality vs. AI Decision-Making Processes.
- Ethical Implications: Agency, Responsibility, and Moral Reasoning.
- Consciousness and Self-Awareness: Can AI achieve a comparable state to humans?
- Prospects: Implications for Society, Technology, and Ethics.
10 Questions to discuss:
- What does it mean to be a “reasonable being”? Is reason purely logical, or does it involve emotions, intuition, or cultural context?
- In what ways is human reasoning constrained by biological evolution?
- Can an AI truly be called “reasonable” if it lacks subjective experience or consciousness? Why or why not?
- AI is proven to be produce better and more reliable medical diagnosis so is there a fundamental flaw with a human making a reasonable decision?
- Should AI reasoning be held to the same ethical standards as human reasoning, or do they require distinct frameworks for moral responsibility?
- Can AI be considered “biased” in the same way that humans are, or is AI bias fundamentally different in origin and effect?
- To what extent does creativity play a role in being a reasonable being—and can AI exhibit true creativity in reasoning?
- If an AI consistently produces better or more “reasonable” decisions than humans in certain areas, does that challenge our definition of human superiority in reasoning?
- Could the development of highly reasonable AIs lead to a redefinition of what it means to be human?
- Should we aim to make AI reasoning more “human-like,” or should we preserve its differences to complement human thinking?
