Only a living thing can truly be alive, because it has a consciousness. It is also made up of cells, which is required for life. Currently, technology does not really think; it acts on a code, so what it does is coded. Even if it's set to do something randomly, it's from options. It's possible that one day computers could develop some sort of sense of self, but it's doubtful, and it would also seem ethically wrong for humans to attempt to create this. Even then, not being cellular, it wouldn't truly be alive.
In order to be considered alive, it is necessary that something be biological rather than mechanical. A living breathing thing that is conscious of its surroundings is necessary. Otherwise it is just a machine that would not be able to live on its own. Anything that can function on a daily with emotion would be considered alive.
If we are going to decide on the quality of aliveness of an entity, it would seem that biological makeup would be a very important factor to use. If something is mechanical or created by humanity, then it may mimic consciousness but it can not be considered to be stricly alive.
The current definition of life (at least the current scientific definition - who knows what the social sciences say) involves biological mechanisms. In the event that AI had somehow managed to be realized fully, the question of what defines life would need to be re evaluated in order to include mechanical.
In order to be considered alive, I think it is necessary
that something be biological rather than mechanical. Only living things can be considered to be
alive. The whole point of being alive is
being a biological being. Machines cannot
truly be alive because they can’t die.
Only animals and plants are alive.