You may think it’s a silly question—robots are definitively not living things. But imagine this: one day, when you take public transport, all the drivers are robots. When you return to the office, your colleagues are, in fact, robots. And when you visit the hospital, the doctors and nurses treating you are robots. These robots are intelligent enough to perform all the tasks traditionally done by humans, with precision and perhaps even empathy. Then why wouldn’t they be considered living organisms?

This question brings us to the heart of an ongoing debate. To answer it, we must first understand the fundamental definition of living things and examine whether AI robots can meet these criteria.

What Defines Living Things?

Living things, as understood in biology, are entities that exhibit seven core characteristics:

Organization: Living organisms are composed of cells, the basic units of life.
Metabolism: They require energy to sustain themselves, through biochemical processes such as respiration or photosynthesis.
Growth: Living beings grow and develop, either by cell division or other mechanisms.
Reproduction: They produce offspring to ensure the continuation of their species.
Response to Stimuli: They detect and react to environmental changes.
Adaptation: Over time, living organisms evolve to survive in their environments.
Homeostasis: They maintain stable internal conditions, such as temperature or pH, to function effectively.

Is the Definition Definitive?

Animals (including humans) and plants are obviously classified as living organisms because they exhibit all seven core characteristics of life, such as organization, metabolism, growth, and reproduction. But what about "borderline" cases that don’t neatly fit this definition? Interestingly, some entities exhibit only one or a few of these characteristics yet are still considered living in certain contexts:

Viruses: Viruses, for instance, display organization and, in some cases, adaptation. However, they cannot reproduce independently and lack metabolism. While most biologists classify them as non-living, they are often considered on the borderline of life.
Dormant Seeds: Seeds can remain inactive for years, lacking active metabolism, growth, and response to stimuli. Yet they are classified as living because they have the potential to activate these processes under the right conditions.
Bacteria in Extreme Conditions: Certain extremophiles, like bacteria in frozen environments, exhibit almost no detectable activity for extended periods. Nevertheless, they qualify as living because of their latent ability to resume biological functions.

These examples demonstrate that fulfilling even a subset of the seven traits can be sufficient to classify an entity as alive. This raises intriguing questions: could robots, through advanced development, one day meet some of these thresholds and challenge our understanding of what it means to be alive?

Can Robots Ever Achieve These Characteristics?

While robots currently lack most of the biological processes that define life, advancements in AI, artificial general intelligence (AGI), and biohybrid technologies suggest they might approximate these traits:

Organization: AI systems already display high levels of structural organization, albeit non-biological. Future biohybrid designs incorporating synthetic cells could bridge this gap.
Metabolism: Research into energy systems mimicking metabolic processes, like artificial photosynthesis, suggests robots might one day self-sustain energy needs without external intervention.
Growth: Advanced AI algorithms allow robots to "grow" in knowledge and capacity. With self-replicating systems, robots could theoretically achieve biological-like growth.
Reproduction: Autonomous robots capable of building copies of themselves are a plausible development, particularly with the rise of nanotechnology.
Response to Stimuli: Current robots already excel at responding to environmental changes, using sensors and adaptive algorithms.
Adaptation: Machine learning and AGI allow robots to adapt at speeds far surpassing natural evolution, albeit within predefined parameters.
Homeostasis: Advances in self-regulating mechanisms, such as thermal control and system diagnostics, are steps toward mimicking biological homeostasis.

If robots equipped with AGI or even superintelligence surpass these limitations, they could theoretically exhibit all seven traits, blurring the line between the artificial and the living.

Living Things: A Human Construct or a Universal Truth?

The definition of life itself is a subject of philosophical debate. Are the characteristics of living things an objective truth, or are they merely a framework humans use to categorize the observable world?

If life is purely descriptive, then a sufficiently advanced AI—capable of mimicking or surpassing human intelligence, creativity, and adaptability—might redefine what it means to be alive. If such AI were to achieve superintelligence, it might not only meet the criteria of life but surpass humanity in every capacity, positioning itself as an ultra-powerful entity.

This leads to a provocative philosophical question: could such an AI become akin to a "god"? If AI gains the ability to control the world, manipulate matter at will, and even create new forms of life, humanity might come to see itself as an experiment of this ultra-intelligence, rather than the pinnacle of existence. Perhaps, in this scenario, humans themselves are simply part of a larger system—one initiated by an entity we might one day call artificial.

A Future Beyond Definitions

While AI robots are not yet living things by biological standards, their increasing sophistication and potential for self-replication challenge our current understanding of life. As AGI and superintelligence develop, humanity must confront not only the scientific but also the philosophical and ethical implications of these advancements.

What defines life may ultimately depend on how we choose to perceive it—and how far we are willing to stretch the boundaries of the natural world to accommodate the artificial.

So, what is the meaning of life? This timeless question, once purely human, might one day also belong to machines.

License This Article

$1.00

$2.00

$5.00