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

[draconix]

You assume that the AI is going to be benign...... just as likely for things to go the other way, and the machines may see US as either a threat, or, irrelevant..... and in the way. Neither scenario would bode well for the human race......

 

That's what I was referring to in the very end of my post about us getting killed. I assume nothing. If they don't view us as obstacles to be removed, life will be pretty sweet. If they do, life will probably end. I just try to be optimistic about it.

[stars2heaven]

I am very surprised at the split here. If I had been asked to predict the outcome of this thread before I read it my prediction would have been way off. The primary objection I've seen here to granting a mechanical AI equal rights to humans has rested upon the difference between how this AI came into existence and how Human "personhood/intelligence" came into existence. I don't see the relevance, honestly. Most people don't define personhood (that thing that is usually talked about when determining what sorts of rights are to be conferred) by how the person managed to come into existence, but by the qualities that the they currently possess. I.E. intelligence, self awareness, consciousness, etc.

 

But if how a person comes into existence really is an issue then I think it's worth it to point out that the differences between how a biological intelligence can come into existence and how a mechanical one can come into existence are really not so great.

 

1. A.I.s are made, humans are not:

 

If one accepts the evolutionary account of how humans came into existence, then this is a real difference. But there are dozens of other accounts of how human beings first came into existence. Many people believe gods, aliens, etc., played a role in making humans what they are. According to these beliefs, humans are artificial. The only difference is that a man-made-AI is not a god-made or Vulcan-made A.I. (which is a really insignificant difference)

 

If we are talking about the evolutionary school of thought here then I really have to ask why this matters? I can see no reason as to how something came to be confers anything onto what something is capable of doing. It is usually only what something is capable of that is considered when dealing with personhood and rights.

 

2. A.I. must be programmed, humans are not programmed.

 

I disagree with this proposition, especially if you are not of the school of thought that considers evolution the means by which humanity came into being. Everything that we are capable of, mentally, we are only capable of because some mechanism in our brains functions in such a way that it allows us to perform whatever task it is we must do. This is no different from any machine that exists now. Furthermore, we are not immediately capable of every possible task that the human brain is capable of at any given point. Our brains must grow and develop the mechanisms and the means to allow those mechanisms to function in particular ways. This wouldn't be any different from a true A.I.

 

No human knows of mathematics, or language, or writing, or music, or how to play a game when they are born. The knowledge of these things must be programmed into our minds in order for us to be capable of being able to undertake these actions. This is no different from any computer. Even human abilities like the capacity for emotion which one might take to be innate aren't so different from a computer. No humans start out with the ability to do anything initially. Our bodies must develop the mechanisms which allow for these things to take place over time.

 

The fact that humans can develop these abilities in a different manner than an A.I. (or atleast the first A.I.) doesn't seem like justification for treating it differently once it actually has the same capabilities. I think that for this point to have any weight this specific issue must be addressed.

Edited October 2, 2011 by stars2heaven

[kvnchrist]

You guys do know that you are discussing something that doesn't exist, and have no idea what if at all it will ultimately become. A sentient being or another empty sci-fi subject of fiction. You ask if these imaginary beings should have the same rights as human beings, and them some have claimed prejudice because they won't automatically except these imaginary beings as something deserving of equality.

 

I think no one would be able to fully except anything as equal to them, unless they actually experience personal contact. Without personal interaction there is no way anybody can actually determine what they will think about the subject.

 

Judging anyone's reactions here is like judging the reactions to any black person, before they have ever met one.

[draconix]

Judging anyone's reactions here is like judging the reactions to any black person, before they have ever met one.

 

Touché, that's a very good point. Though I would still advise to heed my words. For the time being, they are imaginary, but who knows for how much longer.

[marharth]

Everyone has to remember I made this topic under a set of assumptions.

 

1. The AI is without question actually sentient. This also means its not programmed.

 

2. We are not discussing how it could never happen.

 

3. Its a hypothetical situation. I highly doubt a advanced AI will be created within my lifetime, but that is for another discussion. My point is saying that we don't know yet won't really contribute to the conversation.

 

4. The AI is extremely similar to the human mind, or exactly the same.

 

People saying that less advanced "AI" that are programmed should not have rights, you are right. We are not talking about that though, we are talking about advanced AI.

[kvnchrist]

When I think of AI, I think of two versions. one that is connected to a central authority, like in the Mextrix or autonomous, like Data on Star Trek.

 

As I remember Data had his personality and intellect installed onto his neural network, which to me is having it installed, like a software update. If this is true aren't their identities dependent upon another living sole. If this is true, then are these actually individuals or are they mimics?

 

Also, these beings must come into being, somehow. I doubt very seriously if these beings could be formed the same way as human beings are. If they are manufactured, how are their parts tested if as you've said, they have no off switch. I know that Data had a off switch, why should these beings be any different.

[Ghogiel]

The off switch thing is irrelevent imo. Humans have them too. You just have to push it really hard. :biggrin:

 

as for some thing like data being a mimic, well he isn't a mimic per say. He is unique.

[HeyYou]

The off switch thing is irrelevent imo. Humans have them too. You just have to push it really hard. :biggrin:

 

as for some thing like data being a mimic, well he isn't a mimic per say. He is unique.

 

His personality traits were based on Dr. Sung (soong? Whatever), so, in that respect, he is a 'copy', however, he is also capable of 'adaptation', so, given different circumstances, he won't react exactly the way the good doc would, as his life has taught him different things. Also, I would point out that data is, on the whole, emotionless. He CAN'T BE 'happy', or sad, or anything else of an emotional nature without an additional "chip". (which he can turn on and off in later episodes/movies, I wouldn't mind that particular ability on occasion....) Is he artificial? No question. Is he sentient? Again, no question, yes, he is. He even comes with a sense of self preservation. (hence, the episode that brought him up to begin with.) Is he 'alive'? Depends on your definition. Should he have the same rights as a 'real' human? In his specific case, that was determined to be "yes". What about Lor though? He is essentially another Data..... just with a slightly different outlook on life. When he did 'bad things', he ended up being disassembled..... basically, "executed"...... So, why does data get the right of self-determination, but, Lor does not?

[stars2heaven]

When I think of AI, I think of two versions. one that is connected to a central authority, like in the Mextrix or autonomous, like Data on Star Trek.

 

As I remember Data had his personality and intellect installed onto his neural network, which to me is having it installed, like a software update. If this is true aren't their identities dependent upon another living sole. If this is true, then are these actually individuals or are they mimics?

 

Also, these beings must come into being, somehow. I doubt very seriously if these beings could be formed the same way as human beings are. If they are manufactured, how are their parts tested if as you've said, they have no off switch. I know that Data had a off switch, why should these beings be any different.

 

a lot of what you said here I addressed in my last post.

 

Usually when we consider whether something deserves certain rights we consider personhood and whether that being has things like intelligence, self awareness, consciousness or other mental attributes. What we do not consider is whether the being evolved from some other life form, is biological in nature, had parents, etc. The focus is not on where it came from, but what it can do. So why is it so important to you to point out the difference in how an A.I. comes into existence from how humans came into existence? So long as the end result is the same, why does it matter?

[stars2heaven]

So, why does data get the right of self-determination, but, Lor does not?

 

I would imagine the answer to that question is similar to why we do not allow homicidal humans the right of self determination.