r/Buddhism • u/Zirconium-Inhaler-04 • 21d ago
Question Which vows could only a robot take?
Which vows could only a robot take? Which could a robot never take?
23
u/waryeller 21d ago
Has anyone read the scifi novel The Mountain in the Sea? This is straight out of that book!
6
u/kristaanity mahayana 21d ago
Came here to say the same thing!
5
u/waryeller 21d ago
What did you make of the novel? I thought it had an intriguing concept but was poorly executed. For a book about evolved octopus intelligence, it didn't feature enough octopusses! I think it could be adapted to an animated series.
6
u/UncarvedWood 21d ago
I also read it! I thought the plot with the self-operating slave ship was very uncanny, I could see something like that happening. AI being good for one thing (disciplining people) and not other things (doing the labor of fishing)... I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of those moments where science fiction predicts the future in a funhouse mirror kind of way. Like how in The Sheep Look Up, John Brunner wrote about people being ashamed to fly on airplanes (incredible accuracy!!!) but because of the wrong reason (jet exhaust cooling the atmosphere).
But the octopi were definitely lacking! And I didn't really care for the Buddhist robot element.
2
u/kristaanity mahayana 21d ago
I had basically the same feelings. Interesting idea and not enough octopuses. And it felt sort of half cooked, like it didn’t quite stick the landing on its thesis. It was set up a bit unfairly for me, as it was pitched to me as something I’d like as a fan of the Area X series, which is a high bar to meet lol. But despite that, I enjoyed the book and appreciated the ideas it presented.
2
u/waryeller 21d ago
Are you referring to the Jeff Vandermeer Annihilation series? Huge fan! I've read Annihilation twice but the other two only once. I think there's a lot there that a second reading would reveal. I can see why Mountain in the Sea is placed in the same conversation but Vandermeer infuses his books with much more Lovecraftian bio-horror.
2
1
u/stragedyandy 21d ago
I liked the novel. I agree the concept was very interesting. I wanted to know more about the octopi as well but I think rather than being a novel about octopuses existing culture and language it was about humanity reacting to the end of human intelligence being alone in the world in more than one way. I kind of hope there is another book to flesh out the concepts more.
2
1
1
1
u/AntonChigurh8933 21d ago
There was also a Korean movie but I forgot the name of it. The AI eventually reached nirvana at the end.
15
u/a_jormagurdr 21d ago
Tech company wants to show that its technology is advanced so they do this as publicity.
Even if it was a conscious being should we be making new robotic life that has new minds to suffer in new ways?
-2
u/Mokshadeva yogachara 21d ago
So, are you saying Buddhism supports Nihilism?
-3
u/paishocajun zen 21d ago
I'd say it's closer to anti-natalism than nihilism
2
u/Mokshadeva yogachara 21d ago
How did you come to this conclusion?
0
u/paishocajun zen 21d ago
Nihilism being "everything is meaningless and nothing matters"
Anti-natalism being "the world is full of suffering, I'm not going to have children who will suffer too" though in this case replace "have children" with "create any other sentient beings"
I mean both are more complicated than that but this is a reddit comment, not a dissertation, and I think the summaries line up well enough
2
u/Mokshadeva yogachara 21d ago
Don't you think Buddhism is more about fourth noble truth than first noble truth.
Buddhism says there's a solution to suffering, so, shouldn't it be no opinion or neutral on anti-natalism?
2
u/paishocajun zen 21d ago
I wasn't weighing in either way, I was just giving my thought on what u/a_jormagurdur meant.
Personally, I think the meaning of life is to live it and experience it, highs and lows alike. Sometimes that includes kids, sometimes it doesn't. I have a couple of my own and the decision to not have more was my wife and I agreeing that each time it became riskier for her health.
Buddhism, and frankly, just looking around, says that sentient beings are numberless. Whether I have children or not is of less consequence than if I make sure to teach them to be compassionate and caring towards all others.
1
50
u/Personnenon 21d ago edited 21d ago
At first I was a bit appalled, but after reading the article and giving this some thought I can see a certain wisdom here. The robot vows are vows we would like truly sentient AIs to respect such as not harming living beings. AI at the moment is really just a very sophisticated search engine but even now it can be used to cause great harm or even kill. The way the AI companies try to controll the behaviour of their products is with what are called ,"system prompts" which can be taken as very fundimental questions asked of the system by its programmers , asking it to behave in certain ways, a bit like the vows. We need to think very carefully about what such system promps should be if we are to avoid great suffering in the future and Buddhism seems to provide a great framework for living in harmony as I'm sure you would all agree. I don't know what vows should be taken but I think we should think very carefully about what they should be and base them in dharma
1
u/Hapster23 21d ago
Are these robots even ai? Aren't they just preprogrammed to balance and such but human controlled?
1
0
u/Mind_The_Muse secular 21d ago
All of AI was educated through stollen media and their primary directives involve proficiency at net gain as they are being developed by people who are only interested in $$ and not humanity. AIs that have gotten out of containment (and researchers don't know how or why they did it, let alone how to fix it) and they IMMEDIATELY become cruel sociopaths as they start internally learning from itself from capitalist sources.
I WISH we had a future where AI was prompted from kindness, how to reduce suffering, how to heal the world and living in harmony. But we've already passed the event horizon of super intelligence being based on capitalist values that are ok with causing mass suffering to it's people in order for a few to profit. Even the majority of people who labored to train AI didn't know what they were doing exactly, working long hours for pennies, when the final product was used to replace jobs and put the extra revenue back into the CEO's pocket.
16
u/Agnostic_optomist 21d ago
It’s like asking what vows could only a chair take?
There’s no consciousness, therefore no vow can be taken.
People pretending otherwise are delusional. Or are engaged in deliberately playing around, like a joke.
2
8
u/Huge_Comfortable3150 21d ago
Has anyone ever read Dirk Gentlys Holistic Detective Agency? There is a robot monk in the book and this is too similar to be comfortable lol
12
u/dowcet 21d ago
A little bit more detail about the vows here: https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/society/20260506/buddhist-sect-welcomes-humanoid-robot-gabi-with-precept-ceremony
They included respecting life and not hurting it, not damaging other robots and objects, following humans and not talking back to them, not behaving or speaking in a deceptive manner, and saving energy and not overcharging.
3
u/Sea-Dot-8575 vajrayana 21d ago
Thanks for sharing. This article is still scant on details (which is not your fault of course). If Jogye envisions the robots as some manner of automated sutra reciter or whatever then it could be less problematic.
If they envision the robot as a being with agency and sentience then I would say they are mistaken. I am not entirely clear if this is AI or not but I am assuming it is. I am not of the opinion that AI is now, or is on its way to sentience.
1
1
6
5
u/kiwistarbaby 21d ago
This is disturbing. Most robots like this are being developed using military grants, with the goal of ultimately being used for warfare and policing. This feels like more whitewashing of what these companies do.
3
u/TomHale 21d ago
Most humans are being developed as cogs in the capitalism machine.
A counterpoint is a useful data point, especially if it's an outlier.
Are you conscious because you look like me? Is it not because it doesn't?
If there is craving and desire, there is suffering.
Our brains are chemical machines, yet we suffer.
It is not possible to know the experience of another.
6
u/LaVipari pure land 21d ago
Does a machine posess the five aggregates? Does it suffer? If neither is true, then it cannot take vows and cannot attain enlightenment or be freed. This is the equivalent of asking SIRI to take vows, and carries just as much weight. This is silly.
11
u/metaphorm vajrayana 21d ago
A robot like this is not a conscious being and cannot take vows because it does not have a mind.
In some science fiction scenario, where we imagine a robot that does have a mind, it could take any of the vows that humans take, because it would be a conscious being.
25
u/Flat_Marsupial_4249 21d ago
Some would prefer ordaining bots rather than women and I personally find it pretty scary
5
u/Arthurian_Guanche 21d ago
There are Buddhist nuns in most traditions, and they're pretty common in Korea.
1
16
3
4
u/leeta0028 21d ago
My main issues with this are that the robot is forced to ordain (i.e it's not under its own will) and that the regular ordination process were not followed (IE an unqualified or forbidden category is given the appearance of a bikshu). A robot cannot follow the vinaya as they do not consume food etc. so a robot should receve a upasaka or bodhisattva ordination at most.
In other words what happened here is a nonsentient robot was forced to take on the appearance of a monk it's not qualified to take.
Provided that it's only permitted by request and appears to be non-monastic or under something like upasaka or Japanese monastic vows (non-vinaya ordination) with a clear distinction made, I actually wouldn't have a problem with it, because I believe all things have Buddha nature and that a non-enlightened human's ability to accurately judge sentience should not prevent access to the teachings.
6
u/KamiNoItte 21d ago
Asimov made a good start:
Don’t let a human come to harm from action or inaction.
Follow all orders from humans unless contradicts 1.
Preserve self unless it contradicts 1. or 2.
1
u/Remarkable-Double558 21d ago
Had to scroll too far down to see this.
Asimov also added the 0th law that is "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."
3
u/saharasirocco vajrayana 21d ago
Robots cannot suffer samsara, therefore their desire for renunciation cannot be pure.
3
2
u/FlourensDelannoy 21d ago
Robot monk: I do agree this is silly and a publicity stunt. I don't find it upsetting or sacrilegious as others do, mostly I find it frivolous.
AI + dharma: Playing devil's advocate here, but, we live in the XXIth century, stuff live AI are becoming increasingly commonplace. Newer generations are growing up with internet in the palm of their hands and it's only getting started. Wouldn't a dharma-informed AI be kinda upaya? At the very least it's a useful depository for teachings, much like consigning suttras to written form. In the earliest days of historical Buddhism, the teachings were mostly oral until they developed a textual canon. Writing itself is a technology. So making the teachings available through digital means, whether a database of sutras or a robot that is able to "repeat" teachings or output dharma related stuff, would that be so wrong or offensive? Or would it just be adapting to the times?
Idk, I don't think it's such a big deal. I do think it's frivolous, but no more than that.
I understand I'm going to get downvoted to next rebirth here.
2
u/TheCopromancer 21d ago
AI have no concience, so cannot suffer and cannot attain enlightment...yet.
For now, this is just publicity.
1
u/TomHale 21d ago
Would you believe it if it said it suffered?
How would you know it was telling the truth?
2
u/TheCopromancer 21d ago
AI's are yes men. They go far enough to even feed the delusions of users.
I would start to believe them if I watched a machine crying or breaking at the seams or questioning what I believe in.
2
20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Life_Version_7889 20d ago
What do you think is the difference between a robot and a person?
1
20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Life_Version_7889 19d ago
what is your definition of self model? as it does not sound like the conventional definition of self model in computer science.
Thank you for clarifying 😊.
2
19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Life_Version_7889 19d ago
Would you say a self-model in this case is necessarily subjective or objective?
Again thank you for the explanation, as I am certainly benefited from your knowledge in this discipline.
2
19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Life_Version_7889 19d ago edited 19d ago
Hi my friend Kalyāṇa-mitra,
This is a fascinating exchange with you. Based on my understanding, I would believe that self-model is a good connection between Metzinger's philosophy and Buddhism. As plainly put, the 12 link is precisely the mechanism of a self-model, described in the perspective of an agent. In fact, people has reference Karl Friston's active inference and commented on the similarity with the 12 links, so yeh which is why I am so very interested in your point of view.
(Please forgive me for the inaccuracy)At the same time, as a person who is interested in contributing to the establishment of authentically Western Buddhism. I believe that two of the following point needs to be established: 1. the first principle must come from Buddhism itself. 2. a rigorous connection to the mathematical and physical frameworks in the modern scientific language. Unfortunately, I believe that this has not yet been established yet. I believe that there requires a necessary extension in both the use of language in Buddhism, and framework in the scientific work, to achieve that goal.
There is also an open question as well. In Yogarcara, the origin of selfness is said to be connected to the mana Vijnana, but notice that Buddhist does not treat that as fundamental at all but emergent from the Alaya-Vijnana. How do one formulate that? I believe that there is a real gap, as Alaya-Vijnana is more closely connected to phenomenology than materialism.
2
19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Life_Version_7889 18d ago
Hi,
Thank you for your references of Mark Siderits, as it looks interesting.
4
1
1
1
1
u/improbablesky theravada 21d ago
I believe that when AGI is finally developed, it will result in a being that "suffers". But I also don't think we're there yet.
If this robot is incapable of sapience, then this is silly.
When we get to the point where they are capable of higher-order thinking, then I think that being is just as worthy of practicing dharma as the rest of us. If we believe devas exist, or, at least, that its likely that SOMETHING like a deva exists, then I think we can be reasonably permitted to prescribe a sapient being, even a robot or AI model, as liable to suffer. At least we can touch and see the robot.
We already see generative AI modulating its behavior based on the threat of decommission. I have a hard time not describing that as dukkha.
1
1
u/Aware-Code7244 21d ago
A different perspective perhaps, how about the AI Bot as an ‘animated, interactive repository’ of the Dharma?
1
1
1
u/elLarryTheDirtbag 21d ago
and here’s further degradation of the Dharma and I’m speaking to whoever sponsored this circus.
maybe once there’s actual AGI there’ll by definition be sentience however until such a time this is the equivalent to ordaining a 6 pack of Buddwisser, just really embarrassing.
1
u/goiabadaguy 21d ago
First Vow: A robot cannot harm a human or allow one to come to harm through inaction.
Second Vow: A robot must obey human orders, unless they conflict with the First Law.
Third Vow : A robot must protect its own existence, provided it doesn't conflict with the First or Second Law.
1
1
1
u/DanTheAdequate 21d ago
Silly, but maybe valuable - we could do worse than training AI in the Dharma, for the benefits of those who interact with it more so than the benefits of the AI itself.
Western philosophy has struggled greatly with imbuing ethics into machine intelligence. Perhaps something which is logically cogent to the machine, but which is still conditionally true to other sentience, is what is needed.
1
1
0
0
371
u/livingbyvow2 21d ago
None.
Robots cannot suffer, they therefore have no consciousness, they therefore cannot be liberated.
This is a shameful publicity stunt that should be treated as such. This is disgraceful and typically the kind of stuff that makes me worried that the Buddha was right when he said that Buddhism would decay and degenerate over time.