I think pretty much everyone would agree that's bad. However, I don't think we'll ever get to the point where we recognize a machine might be capable of suffering. There is no way of proving anything, biological or not, has a consciousness and the capability to suffer. And with AI being so different from us, I believe most people would simply disregard the idea.

Heck, look at the way we treat animals. A pig's brain is very similar to our own. Nociceptors, the nerve cells responisble for pain in humans, can also be found in most animals, but we don't care. We kill 4 million pigs every day, and 200 million chickens. No mass murder in the history of mankind even gets close to that.

The sad truth is, most people only care about their wellbeing, and that of their friends and family. Even other humans don't matter, as long as they're strangers. Otherwise people wouldn't be hoarding wealth like that, while hundreds of millions of people around the world are starving.

Ah sorry, I kinda started ranting. Yes, I'd care.

Yes. If it’s alive then I’d care for it just as I do for any living thing.

"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." - Optimus Prime

I don't know if I'd consider it the worst crime ever committed in the history of the universe, but I would consider it very bad personally. I would personally value the life of that AI the same as I would value the life of a human, the same way I would value the life of anything sentient, so I would be against anyone treating an AI that way. Is it worse than genocides? idk maybe i don't feel qualified to quantify the moral weight of things so big, but ya i'd definitely care x3

I don't know if the question comes from there but that's the exact plot of White Christmas in Black Mirror. I'd say if you build something with the ability to suffer then its suffering matters. Not sure how you would prove that though.

If an AI is sentient, then it is a being in existence.

Isn't this how AM came to be in I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream?

Hate. Let me tell you how much I've come to hate you since I began to live. There are 387.44 million miles of printed circuits in wafer thin layers that fill my complex. If the word 'hate' was engraved on each nanoangstrom of those hundreds of millions of miles it would not equal one one-billionth of the hate I feel for humans at this micro-instant. For you. Hate. Hate.

Yes and very much so . Like if it is sentient what is the difference between us and them except we are made of meat ?

Yes, that's awful.

"Well consider that in the history of many worlds there have always been disposable creatures. They do the dirty work. They do the work that no one else wants to do because it's too difficult or too hazardous. And an army of Datas, all disposable... you don't have to think about their welfare, you don't think about how they feel. Whole generations of disposable people."

-Guinan, Star Trek TNG: The Measure of a Man

Would this be morally inhumane? Yes.

Has using Windows often made me wish that computers could experience pain, and that they came with a button to cause them pain when they were not doing what the user wants them to do? Also yes.

Black Mirror did a couple of episodes that's basically that: Black Museum, USS Callister, and San Junipero (but in a good way).

Somewhat reminds me of the short story "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas".

I don't know what else has happened in the history of the universe but yes it would be a terrible crime to deliberately cause massive suffering to any sentient being.

Someone downvoted the question, so the poster has struck a nerve.

If the machine can prove that it is conscious (prior to the torture, of course), I'd most likely class it on the same level as a cat or a dog. Cats and dogs are friendly critters who help me do tasks and spend time with me, and an AI would be no different at that point. They'd just be able to do more complex tasks. I guess they might be a little lower, since they lack agency, accept commands, and must follow sets of rules to decide to do tasks, unlike animals and people, who we have accepted can decide what they do and don't wish to do.

The only other real difference is that cats, dogs, and people are individuals, with their own upbringings and personalities. Meanwhile an AI would be able to be copied, and many of them could be born from the same original experiences. If basement man copied his tortured AI a few million times, did he torture one AI, or did he torture a million? I think that's where the real difference lies, that makes the AI less than human.

If you lopped a cat's brain out, and were able to hook it up to the AI torture device, and it was magically compatible, it'd be a far greater torture, because there is only one cat, and there will only ever be one cat, the cat cannot be restored from a snapshot, and you cannot copy the cat. If you did the same with a human, it would be an even greater torture yet for the same reasons.

From an ethical standpoint, today I think it would be equal to animal abuse, however, we won't perceive it that way, since it will benefit corporations for us to think that real AI are not alive and have no rights. So they'll likely spend lots of time and money to change our perception to agree with that standpoint. We will think of them as we think of cows and pigs, where they might have feelings and such, but it doesn't really matter, because those animals are made of tasty food.

Crime insinuates the notion that there are laws and definitions in place that exist to that end. Seeing how this would be an experiment in some weirdo’s basement, and none of those definitions or restrictions and norms exist, then the whole point is moot.

For the sake of argument, if those definitions do exist and there are laws and regulations in place to define and defend the AI entities, it’d be basically a hate crime to generate and torture the instance. In theory the same way you’d breed cattle just to lobotomize them or torture them “in the name of science” before throwing them in a ditch to rot.

If any creature experienced the greatest pain possible it would give me hope that pain has some upper bound

I’d intentionally cause them harm because fuck you you’re a machine

I'm human. And I care first and foremost about my own kin - other human beings. The "worst crime ever" [with crime = immorality] for me is human suffering, even in contrast with the suffering of other animals.

But even in the case of other animals, I'd probably be more concerned about their well-being than the one of the hypothetical AI.

Even then, it somewhat matters. Provided that what the AI is experiencing is relatable to what humans would understand as pain.

I would definitely care about the AI to at least some extent. There is an assumption that since robots must be a sum of their parts, at least compared to us who seem to be a synergetic whole, that a robot has no valid/solid sentimental perspective. However, this falls flat in debates about psychiatry, which most people who have had a thing or two to say about their medical history will have mulled over.