Claim · 2010 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Chalmers's paper of 2010 states that the wholesale replacement of humans by nonhuman systems would plausibly be subjectively bad but that there is a case that it would be objectively good if the value of lives is tied to intelligence and complexity.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis → bears on → Succession by machines would be acceptable or desirable

Where it appears

Machine succession, scale and acceleration: propositions in located texts, 1979–2026 →

Claim and evidence

The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysisbears on ↓Succession by machines would be acceptable or desirable

Machine-checkedStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2010 · publication Records dated 2010 →
Wording attested: 2026-10-31. Wording read in the author-hosted PDF retrieved on 2026-10-31; its revision date is unknown (as the dataset records), and its first page states the 2010 publication in the Journal of Consciousness Studies. The cross-family check found two passages of the paper in an archive capture of 21 August 2010 (the capture requested for 13 June 2010 redirects to it); not every passage of this record was compared with it. Not compared with the journal pages.
Role: Context
Register (kind of text): Nonfiction
Missing element: The passage sets out a case conditional on a view of value; Chalmers does not adopt the view or hold that replacement would be acceptable.

Scope and limitsPart of a survey of how a post-singularity world might be valued; the paper goes on to discuss constraining AI values.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis

Journal of Consciousness Studies · 2010

Archived copy, captured 2026-09-17: The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“wholesale replacement of humans by nonhuman systems would plausibly be subjectively bad, but there is a case that it would be objectively good, at least if one holds that the objective value of lives is tied to intelligence and complexity.”

Location in source Section 5 "Negotiating the Singularity", PDF p. 23

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-11-01

Source details and check notes

Authors: David J. Chalmers
Version: Author-hosted 56-page expression; first-page footnote identifies 2010 journal publication, volume 17, pp. 7–65. Revision date unknown; PDF pagination differs from journal pagination.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-09-20
Language: English (en)
Archive copy: Open archived copy, captured 2026-09-17: The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2026-09-17. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-09-20.
Attribution: David J. Chalmers, The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis (2010).
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata and brief attributed paraphrases only; no full source, personal contact details or dataset imported.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, machine succession, scale and acceleration (research/heterodox-thought). The quotation (40 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-31. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. A cross-family machine check (2026-11-01, item 37) classified the passage blind as articulates; after comparing it with the record, the check recommended the stance recorded. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Machine-checked. Machines found this record and checked it against its sources; no person accepted it individually. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. A passage of the document bears on the proposition without meeting its criterion; the record names the missing element. It is not an articulation and implies no influence.

Date. Date of publication, as the source gives it.

Record ID ht-w02-chalmers-singularity