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

[lemonfan1]

To get this clear, people think that AI should not be treated equal based on their flesh, organs, and other things besides their mind? That sounds a bit familiar :whistling:

 

Also people have said that since we are their creator, we should control them. What if a alien race came down and proved that they created us? Should we agree to slavery?

 

 

Someone else also said that because they are not the same species, we should not treat them the same. That is a fair point, but they would still have the same mind in the form of a mechanical mind. Maybe they should be outlawed from taking place in the human Olympics, and other sporting events since it would be a unfair advantage.

 

Also to be clear again, this is not a AI that has programming to be made aware. This is a AI that fully learns on its own, and operates as a human in every single possible way.

 

If I missed something, tell me.

 

I like this post.

 

If AI were created, a real, true AI then yes, such a thing should be given rights. An artificial intelligence may be artificial, but it's still intelligence. A true AI is self aware and shouldn't be treated as a lower class merely because of how it came to be.

 

But this is the problem with having AI. Humans are intolerant of each other for sexual/religious/political views, color of skin, nationality, and so forth. Until humanity can grow out of this immature state, I hope for all of us that a true AI will never come to be. Humans can't handle it. We'd think we're better than them, try to control them, abuse them and then ultimately face a terrible end.

 

It reminds me of Mass Effect and the Geth. The Geth were used for labor and were nothing more than tools. They became self-aware and questioned their masters. Because of this their creators, the Quarians, tried to exterminate them. The Geth won the war and forced the entire species off of their home-world.

 

And The Three Laws of Robotics won't help. There's always a loophole in a system like that. It's not hard to think up one. All it takes is to take action that doesn't break a rule, but bends it. Then there's always the possibility that a glitch or a simple bit of damage could corrupt that bit of information.

[kvnchrist]

Yea, lets give a battery the right to procreate and set back and watch them. Mankind could never come up with something with the mental capacity, the ability for creative thought. Talking about giving equal right to machines is ludicrous. That's like saying these internet is equal to the real world. Anything you can turn off with a flip of a switch will never be equal to anything living and breathing.

[marharth]

Yea, lets give a battery the right to procreate and set back and watch them. Mankind could never come up with something with the mental capacity, the ability for creative thought. Talking about giving equal right to machines is ludicrous. That's like saying these internet is equal to the real world. Anything you can turn off with a flip of a switch will never be equal to anything living and breathing.

Your a battery as well, you recharge from eating and drinking.

 

We can, and we will in the future. Even if we couldn't that is not what the topic is about.

 

If the machines have a equal mind, why not?

[kvnchrist]

Yea, lets give a battery the right to procreate and set back and watch them. Mankind could never come up with something with the mental capacity, the ability for creative thought. Talking about giving equal right to machines is ludicrous. That's like saying these internet is equal to the real world. Anything you can turn off with a flip of a switch will never be equal to anything living and breathing.

Your a battery as well, you recharge from eating and drinking.

 

We can, and we will in the future. Even if we couldn't that is not what the topic is about.

 

If the machines have a equal mind, why not?

 

 

Which switch turns me off. We can dream and contemplate things we would like to do. It is what this topic is about. You are talking about a mechanism here. Not a human being.

 

I praise you for you compassion for other things. You bring up some interesting ideas, but the fact that their is a difference between living organisms and machines can't be discounted. If you had the choice between saving your cat or dog and saving an AI robot, which would you do?

 

Would it be any different between saving a human being and one of your animals. I think the humans would win out before your animals and the animals would win out before the robot. To have equal rights, they have to be equal, and they aren't anything even close. That's what I'm saying.

[marharth]

Which switch turns me off. We can dream and contemplate things we would like to do. It is what this topic is about. You are talking about a mechanism here. Not a human being.

 

I praise you for you compassion for other things. You bring up some interesting ideas, but the fact that their is a difference between living organisms and machines can't be discounted. If you had the choice between saving your cat or dog and saving an AI robot, which would you do?

 

Would it be any different between saving a human being and one of your animals. I think the humans would win out before your animals and the animals would win out before the robot. To have equal rights, they have to be equal, and they aren't anything even close. That's what I'm saying.

An AI could dream and contemplate things it would like to do as well. An AI does not have to have a off switch. Human begins are mechanisms. Not metal ones, but they are mechanisms.

 

Living organisms are flesh and blood. Why does flesh and blood matter so much over what the mind is?

 

A AI with a mind exactly the same as a human is not equal? In what world? Just because it is made out of different materiel or because it looks different does not mean it should be denied equal rights.

Edited September 29, 2011 by marharth

[AlexxEG]

Which switch turns me off. We can dream and contemplate things we would like to do. It is what this topic is about. You are talking about a mechanism here. Not a human being.

 

I praise you for you compassion for other things. You bring up some interesting ideas, but the fact that their is a difference between living organisms and machines can't be discounted. If you had the choice between saving your cat or dog and saving an AI robot, which would you do?

 

Would it be any different between saving a human being and one of your animals. I think the humans would win out before your animals and the animals would win out before the robot. To have equal rights, they have to be equal, and they aren't anything even close. That's what I'm saying.

 

There are parts of the human body that could act as a switch. (Ofc, you could only turn if Off.)

 

I was on the No side, but marharth has convinced me. They should have equal rights. What materials they are made shouldn't matter.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Alexx378

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Star Trek The Next Generation already settled this.

Data was found to be a life form, not Star Fleet property. It is pretty hard to argue with the conclusions from that episode.

I can conceive of an AI that is intelligent but not like us, in which case I would listen to arguments against granting it rights we expect as sentient creatures. But I also have a hard time believing we would acknowledge its awareness if it isn't just like us.

[marharth]

Star Trek The Next Generation already settled this.

Data was found to be a life form, not Star Fleet property. It is pretty hard to argue with the conclusions from that episode.

I can conceive of an AI that is intelligent but not like us, in which case I would listen to arguments against granting it rights we expect as sentient creatures. But I also have a hard time believing we would acknowledge its awareness if it isn't just like us.

This topic is under the assumption that their minds were very similar, if not just like our minds.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Right... unless you're saying that Data is not like ours in some way. Maybe he is too smart to have rights?

[Aurielius]

Star Trek The Next Generation already settled this.

Now this is droll, taking liberal Hollywood script writers as a basis for a legal opinion, what's next The Prime Directive? Beam me up now... :facepalm: