If AI was created, should it have equal rights to humans?

[marharth]

Quite simple. If a AI machine was created that had the exact same intelligence and learning process of humans, should it also have equal rights?

 

This is assuming we are one hundred percent sure that the AI has the exact same intelligence and learning process, and not just a hoax or something.

 

And yes, we can decide now even if they are not created yet. Just because they have not been created and may never be does not mean you can't make a argument for or against it. So please don't post something like "well we don't know yet, so whatever."

Edited September 28, 2011 by marharth

[FnimonSni]

It's if they express feelings that matter. If they wouldn't have feelings they will just accept whatever happens to them.

 

Thats why we treat animals just - they're not ''intellegent'', but they feel.

[Lynxy45]

It's if they express feelings that matter. If they wouldn't have feelings they will just accept whatever happens to them.

 

Thats why we treat animals just - they're not ''intellegent'', but they feel.

True True but remember, humans and animals were created by/occurred because of the same entity, i.e nature, whereas A.I. platforms like androids were created by humans, therefore, just like nature has power over us and animals in many different ways (such as how we even turned out and will turn out in the first place and in the future), humans should and indeed do have power over what they create, and in fact, there is a right for us to have it.

[FnimonSni]

Indeed, I'm with you all the way. I just wanted to point out that it's not about intellligence.

 

And infact I haven't yet decided whether it's a yes or a no.

[marharth]

Learning process, meaning they are identical to humans mentally in almost every way.

 

We could create humans from cloning, does that mean the humans that could be made from cloning don't deserve the same rights since they were made by man in some sense?

 

Creating something does not instantly give you complete control over it.

Edited September 28, 2011 by marharth

[Lynxy45]

Indeed, I'm with you all the way. I just wanted to point out that it's not about intellligence.

 

And infact I haven't yet decided whether it's a yes or a no.

Ok, and that is true I agree that it isn't necessarily about intelligence either, just whether or not its creation was directly contributed to by humans (which of course in the case of AI's in this context, it is 100 percent)

[marharth]

Indeed, I'm with you all the way. I just wanted to point out that it's not about intellligence.

 

And infact I haven't yet decided whether it's a yes or a no.

Ok, and that is true I agree that it isn't necessarily about intelligence either, just whether or not its creation was directly contributed to by humans (which of course in the case of AI's in this context, it is 100 percent)

Edited my post before you replied.

 

Either way man is not really separate from nature. We were created by nature, everything we create is part of nature.

Edited September 28, 2011 by marharth

[Lynxy45]

Learning process, meaning they are identical to humans mentally in almost every way.

 

We could create humans from cloning, does that mean the humans that could be made from cloning don't deserve the same rights since they were made by man in some sense?

 

Creating something does not instantly give you complete control over it.

The concept of cloning is interesting in that facet, but onto what you've also said technically, technically it does. I mean look at a computer for instance, like we're using now, the guys at the factory had power over it, and sold to sell it off, if I was to create a new organism just here right now in fact, and then keep it in a little jar, I still have power over it because I created it and its in my possession. Actually back onto cloning, by the logic about cloning, if a clone is an exact replica of a human being which of course it is then technically it IS human, BUT, by that then I understand the argument you're trying to make is that it cancels itself out because of that. However, it was created by man, and that variable (in this circumstance at least I think) decides the viewpoint, even if it is technically an exact human.

[Lynxy45]

Indeed, I'm with you all the way. I just wanted to point out that it's not about intellligence.

 

And infact I haven't yet decided whether it's a yes or a no.

Ok, and that is true I agree that it isn't necessarily about intelligence either, just whether or not its creation was directly contributed to by humans (which of course in the case of AI's in this context, it is 100 percent)

Edited my post before you replied.

 

Either way man is not really separate from nature. We were created by nature, everything we create is part of nature.

In the end, what is created is created by the individual, you could say that yes nature is responsible for what we create because it created us and allowed us to create it, but its an individual that drives itself to create, of course if you create something by this logic you have power over it but there's really no way to stop its inner thought processes if indeed it has exactly the same mental intelligence as human, therefore, the individual creates because it creates, it is not directly influenced by what created it to create, therefore the creation of the creator is its own.

[FnimonSni]

Learning process, meaning they are identical to humans mentally in almost every way.

 

We could create humans from cloning, does that mean the humans that could be made from cloning don't deserve the same rights since they were made by man in some sense?

 

Creating something does not instantly give you complete control over it.

 

I thought it meant how they gather information.

 

No you cant control everything you create, but you do indirectly own it.