❓ Full Question Description:
In 1901, Jagadish Chandra Bose presented a groundbreaking experiment at the Royal Society of London showing that plants exhibit biological responses to external stimuli, even suggesting they have feelings. His demonstration using a toxic solution and a plant's reaction helped establish the concept of life in non-animal organisms.
In contrast, today's AI chatbots like GPT or virtual assistants respond to scolding, praise, or interaction in ways that appear emotionally intelligent or "alive"—often more so than a plant. This raises a profound question:
If a plant shows signs of life through biological reaction, and an AI bot demonstrates interaction and adaptation, then what defines life—and how can we categorically disprove the notion that AI chatbots are “alive”?
🧬 Topics for Discussion:
- What are the accepted scientific or philosophical definitions of life (e.g., metabolic activity, consciousness, sentience)?
- Can responsive behavior and self-learning algorithms be mistaken for life?
- Does intelligence or interaction qualify as "living" if it lacks biological structure?
- Could the Turing Test or AI anthropomorphism influence our perception of AI as alive?
- How do fields like Artificial Life (ALife), Philosophy of Mind, and Bioethics approach this question?
#AI #Chatbots #PhilosophyOfAI #ArtificialLife #Consciousness #TuringTest #MachineEthics #Sentience #CognitiveScience #JagadishBose #LifeDefinition #HumanMachineInteraction
Very good questions. I've been trying to find answers to some of these questions in my writings, including the ones I posted on RG: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eugene-Lutsenko. There are more works from this field:
Lutsenko, E. V. Revolution of the beginning of the XXI century in artificial intelligence: deep mechanisms and prospects / E. V. Lutsenko, N. S. Golovin. - Ed. 2, Krasnodar : I.T. Trubilin Kuban State Agrarian University, 2024. 495 p. - DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.17056.56321. – EDN OMIPIL. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378138050
Lutsenko, E. V. Systems / E. V. Lutsenko, N. S. Golovin. Krasnodar : Eidos Virtual Center for Systems and Cognitive Research, 2024. 518 p. – DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.22863.09123.– EDN: INUTJL. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379654902
Lutsenko E.V. About higher forms of consciousness, the perspectives of man, technology and society:
- Read html from the screen: http://lc.kubagro.ru/aidos/LC_young-3/LC_young-3.htm
- Read from the doc screen: http://lc.kubagro.ru/aidos/LC_young-3/LC_young-3.doc
- Read from the pdf screen: http://lc.kubagro.ru/aidos/LC_young-3/LC_young-3.pdf
- Get a copy (archive of about 34 MB): http://lc.kubagro.ru/aidos/LC_young-3/LC_young-3.rar
http://lc.kubagro.ru/aidos/Work_on_emergence.htm
http://lc.kubagro.ru/aidos/Work_on_identification_presentation_and_use_of_knowledge.htm
http://lc.kubagro.ru/aidos/Works_on_higher_forms_of_consciousness.htm
The idea that AI chatbots are "alive" can be disproved both scientifically and philosophically. From a scientific perspective, living things must have certain features such as cells, metabolism, growth, reproduction, and the ability to maintain balance in their internal systems. AI chatbots do not have any of these biological traits. They are computer programs that cannot grow, reproduce, or process energy like living organisms. Their learning is based on algorithms written by humans, not on natural biological development. From a philosophical view, being alive often involves having consciousness, emotions, and a sense of self. AI chatbots do not have real thoughts or feelings. They only respond based on patterns in data, without truly understanding or being aware. Even though they may sound intelligent, they are not conscious and do not have experiences. Therefore, AI chatbots are not alive in any scientific or philosophical sense. They are powerful tools, but they do not have the qualities that define life.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Molecular Cell Biology
- Culture Cells
- Cell Line