Wet cells versus Dry cells

[Jon]

Biological or silicon...is there really a difference when it comes to defining life? We seem to be defining gender by new models of thought, so why not what constitutes life? When you think about it, a living organism is really just a collection of cells, which are a pattern of atoms. Likewise, silicon in an AI chip is also just a pattern of atoms. Current definitions of what constitutes life seem to differ and are controversial. With the new paradigm that AI pushes to the fore, are we not at a juncture where a new definition is required, one that encapsulates our own self-created lifeform?

In fact, I just had a thought! Have we ALREADY created new lifeforms? We tend to think that it is only when AI gets near human level of intelligence that we have created potentially a new form of life, with implications for 'silicon rights'. But a single celled organism such as an Amoeba also represents life. Yet we have supercomputers modelling insect level intelligence. (Personally, that just sounds like overkill - needing that level of power to model a dumb insect!! ).

Have we become our own Gods, mortal beings creating immortal life?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Though one can argue that the Turing test is a good way to validate human-level AI, you raise a valid point. If we consider lesser brain sizes, the AI examples we have already created might meet some lesser standard of intelligence. The problem in this question is that we have not devised a sure test for measuring the intelligence of a flea. If we can't test it, we can't be sure.

However, I think at base level that the biological definition of life is still a valid standard. Life must self-replicate; ingest for sustenance; excrete to remove used/waste sustenance; and react to external stimuli. The reaction doesn't have to be human-level intelligence but has to be unequivocal. Like a paramecium consistently moving towards or away from light. Or like certain broad-leafed plants that move during the day to present the maximum leaf surface to sunlight. Or an animal drawing back from a painful contact.

There are robotic assembly lines for some things including computer microchips. I don't think that is enough, though, to qualify for reproduction. The robots do ingest materials and excrete waste (scraps and grinding residue). They CAN react to flaws and other problems. But they still depend on power sources because the input materials aren't contributory towards their survival.