abraker wrote:
The last question's answers boiled down to the use of AI as property which you can do whatever you want with even if it goes against societal views. Now while I can agree that you technically decide what to do with it since you own it, I also believe there should be a fine distinction between ownership and use of that ownership against others. If others believe that your actions are hindering the full beneficial use of the object, should they be able to decide for you to let go of ownership? Well, no, that's called stealing from a prick. However if your decisions of how to use the property are deliberately harming others for self enjoyment or fulfillment, I believe that is when the decision for the owner to let go of the property becomes more relevant.
As said, that's called stealing from a prick. Society wouldn't like that and would want more, but it's not enough to justify force upon the person. However, wanting to regain lost benefit back might justify action because nobody wants to loose something they already have.
It was never specified if he wants the AI destroyed for self enjoyment or because of some other more secretive reason he cannot tell. However, when it comes to the decision to destroy the AI for no reason but value, it is question of whether that value is for self enjoyment or fulfillment or for a noble cause. Society would not allow for an individual to take away something they have because that individual wants to have a laugh.
The robot never was "society's". Society is just a term for a group of people, it's not an entity in itself. The property was the owner's. There is still zero justification for "society" to do infringe upon an owners rights no matter what he does with his property. If other people do not approve, they are free to criticise, boycott, or any other non-violent form of protest they wish, but they're still not allowed to infringe upon the owners right with violence or force.
You have failed to define what you mean by "harm". Withdrawing the use of your property is not "harming" anyone else. Harming someone else is damaging
someone else's body or property. It doesn't matter if the owner withdrew the use of his property purely because of a sadistic desire to inflict pain upon others by withdrawing something they had a dependence on. Dependence does not give you any claim to someone else's property. And deciding whether someone did a certain actions for "noble purposes", or to "harm" other people is completely arbitrary. It's impossible to enforce and any attempt to do so would inevitably result in gross injustices against people who had no desire to harm anyone else.
The only situation in which it would be okay to seek compensation from a property owner is if the other parties had a contract with the property owner for use of his service.
I know it was never specified what he wanted the robot for, but to say that he wanted to destroy the robot for no tangible reason is ridiculous. Only an insane person would do that. As I've already explained, people generally act in their own self-interest. Do you not agree with that statement? We can assume one of three things: that the person was insane, that people don't generally act in their own self interest, or that the value that he payed for that robot was equivalent to what that robot was worth to him.
