Hi Folks, I think we are being a little unfair on Tom's question.
Notwithstanding the simplistic reduction - of the power to act and the
wisdom to do the right thing - to a two-dimensional graph.
Notwithstanding the fact that I share a view that wisdom is more
"child-like" than received (westen, objective) intellectual wisdom.
Tom's starting point is "defintional" - placing a new-born child
"bottom-left" is just defining his axes - the autonomy and wisdom "of
a new born child".
I think a child has high "potential" to the top-right, and is clearly
well above a dead physical object, having innate evolved capabilities
to act and evaluate. A "bot" starts well of the bottom-left scale.
The point is a development & learning one, surely ?
And a question of what qualities and processes define moving (up and)
to the right (and which ones don't) ?
The usual qustion - What defines wisdom, how is it learned, developed ?
When could one "bot" be said to be more "wise" than another; in what
way is a developing human wiser than a bot ?
I think Tom's questiion is valid, because as he points out "bots"
already have autonomy with moral consequences, even for those who
believe a bot could never have the moral wisom to be trusted with such
decisions and actions.
Regards
Ian
|