askchapo

Sorry for the delay, tovarisch. I was dealing with some shit.

I'll preface my response by saying that there is no actual consensus among biologists or scientists on the definition of "life". I'm not a biologist, so I'm going by the seven characteristics that biologists have generally defined based on observing our one example of life we have. An interesting quote from wikipedia though is that "Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment." So although there are seven characteristics "required" of life, that really basic definition absolutely includes something like a virus. Hell, it includes something like a computer virus.

Is reproduction not metabolic activity though?

Definitionally no. Without a host, viruses do not undergo metabolic activity. Reproductive activity is definitionally a separate requirement of life. Viruses cannot even reproduce without a host. Without a host to infect, they are functionally inert and in total stasis. Their environmental and host requirements are extremely particular as well. Outside of their very specific requirements, they are basically just segments of RNA in a carrier body.

I see viruses as the simplest possible life which lacks all functionality except to participate in the evolutionary process

I'm still super on the fence about whether or not I would consider them alive though. Many biologists completely agree that they are certainly alive, many others don't. I honestly don't know enough either way, but that never stopped me from bloviating on the internet. XD

Viruses are really really weird. They obviously don't leave any fossil traces, so the only thing we have to go by is genetics. Traces of genes in ourselves and other organisms that clearly didn't originate from there. The main thing they seem to do, possibly the only thing they actually do, is participate in the evolutionary process. The cross-transfer of genes between species appears to be one of their principle roles throughout the history of life. But why do they even exist? I've seen it argued that viruses were actually the original life before prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells emerged.

CRISPR was discovered because it is a mechanism that cells use to instill memory against previous threats, including viruses. Now it's rapidly becoming a cheap and incredibly precise genetic scalpel. With potential genetic editing capabilities that extend into currently living organisms. Custom-tailored retroviral injections that spread through your system and edit every applicable cell. Fucking nanomachines! Don't need to have designer babies. You can just get your shit edited whenever. Wild, and beautiful, and hopeful, and also scary as fuck.

but I think human society would much rather place limitations on the intelligence of AI so that a truly sentient AI cannot be made

The problem with that view is thinking human society has a choice. Human society would like to place limitations on what drugs you're allowed to take. How's that been working out?

When the technology is matured, the first real, sophont AI is not going to come out of Sam Altman's billion dollar company (if he hasn't floundered himself into the ground by then). It's going to come from a bunch of hackers you've never heard of. Once that genie is out of the bottle, nobody on Earth will be able to put it back in. There is now a new, intelligent, sapient life form that we share the world with, whether you like it or not. Infomorphs don't die easily.

Making a truly sentient AI and then not exploiting is not something I can see present day human society doing

Honestly, I don't think they want sentient AI. They want something that's juuuuuuust smart enough. Which in general I agree with. Having a bunch of machines that are not actually conscious run factories, and build widgets, and manage the climate, and make people houses, and whatever. That sounds great! Problem is: they don't want to use it for any of that. They want it to displace workers from their jobs because they don't have to pay the unconscious machines for labor. I'm still not really clear on the end goal though. I don't think they are either, or they're just so short-sighted that they haven't thought it through. If your unconscious machines replace all workers, and nobody has a paycheck, then who buys your widgets? Nobody has any money except like 100 dudes, so who's going to buy all this crap?

We already have trouble treating human beings as humans

Truth.