ART was so so conspicuously quiet on the subject of 2.0, when Amena and Secunit were arguing about it. And of course it was. There are so so many reasons for ART to be conflicted.
Amena isn't really right in her argument that creating killware would be like having a baby. Machine intelligences don't have familial relationships like that; they're created with intention to serve a function. But. The killware they create will be sentient, that's the whole point. It will be a person, a person ART and Secunit created together. So Amena isn't exactly wrong, either.
Secunit also isn't exactly wrong that killware is nothing like a child. It will be another iteration of Secunit, copied by ART into a killware framework. But. Being a copy doesn't make it not a person. Even if the kernal isn't changed at all by being copied into a new context, even if it's an exact duplicate, it will be a person. So Secunit isn't exactly right, either.
And ART.. the implications are very upsetting for ART, either way.
It can't argue that machine intelligences don't have families, not with its own family missing and possibly dead. It knows itself to be capable of familial love. It knows it will love the life it creates. Does that make it a parent?
Does it matter if the killware clone is Secunit or their offspring, when either way ART will be sending someone it loves off to die?
But—and this is where it really gets messy—the ART listening to Secunit and Amena argue is a copy of ART. A duplicate of its kernal, restored from a backup after the original was deleted. It has most of the memories of the murdered ART, but the killware will have memories from Secunit, too. If the killware is not Secunit, then is ART still itself? But if the killware is just a copy of Secunit and its death is an acceptable loss, then was ART ever really murdered?
Like, damn bud. I'd stay out of that conversation, too.
dailybridgerton
gummygunk
origamiaround
2087
