When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.Heres how it works.
Not just for fun, but because AI has the potential to help us think differently about complex problems.
And I hope its role in reasoning will be far more meaningful than its gimmicky,AI-generated slop.
ChatGPT isnt driving our cars yet, but these dilemmas are becoming more relevant.
Could it apply age-old questions to modern challenges?
And beyond that, how does AI construct thought experiments that confront the ethical dilemmas that AI itself presents?
I know philosophers have been rethinking classic thought experiments for centuries.
We dont need AI to think for us some might argue it even risks making us think less critically.
But this isnt about AI replacing human thought.
Over time, it evolves, modifying its memory and thought processes while your biological self continues to change.
After 50 years, the two versions have diverged significantly.
The question:At what point is the digital “you” no longer you?
If deleted, is it the same as dying?
AI self-replication raises deeper questions: Is identity about memory, consciousness, or continuity?
The “correct” answer:The AI version is a new entity, not a continuation of you.
Memory alone doesnt define identity.
Consciousness isnt just computation.
Over time, you stop writing altogether.
A journalist later reveals your last ten books werent written by you at all.
The question:At what point did you stop being the author?
If AI can replicate your voice and ideas, does authorship require human effort or just a recognizable identity?
It also echoes the Theseus Paradox (above): when does an artist stop being the artist?
It must choose whom to save.
Question:Should the AI act as if these are real people?
But in the digital age, suffering can feel real even if it isnt biological.
Should morality apply to virtual existence?
Devaluing digital suffering could justify harm elsewhere.
As AI and virtual lives evolve, ethics may need to move beyond human boundaries.
One day, a rogue programmer leaks a single, untouched image of reality.
Question:Would you look at it?
If everyone around you prefers the curated version, does the unfiltered world still have value?
If reality is hidden by preference, does truth still matter?
The “correct” answer:Most people would reject the unfiltered image perception shapes reality.
Social media and AI-enhanced content already show how illusions often win over uncomfortable truths.
But someone must look, or we risk losing the ability to recognize reality at all.
Should the AI be credited for uncovering the truth, or condemned for the deception?
The “correct” answer:The AI should not fabricate stories truth matters.
A lie that leads to truth is still a lie, and normalizing this could justify widespread misinformation.
However, this also forces us to reconsider the messy, sometimes accidental ways truth emerges.
At the end of each day, all versions sync.
One day, a glitch prevents one fragment from reconnecting.Question:Is this lost version of you considered dead?
But today, the question isntall or nothing we already live fragmented digital lives.
What happens when we stop being a single, coherent self?
The “correct” answer:The lost version of you is effectively dead identity depends on continuity.
If different versions of you exist in parallel, none are the full “you” just pieces.
How does AI approach these kinds of challenges?
Are there biases in its reasoning?
What assumptions shape its answers?
Some may argue that AI isnt meant to engage in philosophy at all.
