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

[stars2heaven]

It's human nature to be irrational. Is racial prejudice rational? Is blindly applying stereotypes rational? Are emotions rational? Sure, we have the ABILITY to BE rational, but, that does not necessarily imply that we ALWAYS (or, in some case, even "mostly") are. In fact, you can find far more examples of IRRATIONAL behavior, than you can rational. Humans, for the most part, will first see "its a machine". It will have the same value to them as their toaster, or car, or some unknown employee, depending on what purpose it serves to them. Basically, they will be relegated to the ranks of second (third?) class citizens. For lack of a better term, odds are, they won't get citizenship either, as they weren't "born" at all. Of course, time requirements aside, any decent AI could learn the requisite material, and pass any knowledge tests for citizenship in a few short minutes. Would they be given that opportunity though? And what good is the 'word' of something (someone?) that places zero value on their honor, or what some other species thinks of them? Do you really care what the neighbors dog thinks of you? Does the neighbors dog care what you think of Him??

 

Im not sure about the point you are trying to make. ( I assume it's in response to my post, though) Are you saying that because humans are often irrational that denying other persons rights is ok? Please explain. Im also not sure of the relevance of your last question about the dog. We aren't talking about other entities with limited intellect. We are talking about another entity that has at-least equal intellect to our own, who is equally self aware, who is equally conscious, etc. Also, Im not saying that people are unlikely to treat a machine in this manner because it is different from them. Some likely would. The question that is being debated in this thread, however, is whether that machine ought to be treated that way.

[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.

 

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

 

Usually when we consider whether something deserves certain rights we consider person hood 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?

 

 

It matters, because people think of these when they decide wither any entity is equal to them and thus deserves the same rights as they have. It is the differences that people see more clearly than the similarities. As in Data, It was his eyes that stood out. This is true of children and I really don't think it changes much as we mature, unless we focus on changing it, in ourselves. As a child were you more willing to eat a cheeseburger or a piece of brockley? You were most likely to eat what you knew, than try something strange and different.

 

The whole thread is about acceptance. The closer and more familiar anything is, the more comfortable you are with it. We are dealing with human nature here. Giving anything equal treatment (rights) is the highest form of acceptance.

 

Granting what you say here as true, does it seem acceptable to you that we would deny this entity rights simply because of the differences in how it came to exist? That seems like an awfully unethical position to hold. Granting another person rights based on human nature or what one perceives to be familiar or unfamiliar is the crux of an irrational prejudice. It would seem to suggest that there is superiority in human existence, despite evidence to the contrary.

 

 

It doesn't matter what you or I think. It matters what society as a whole thinks. The only thing that will assure these beings acceptance is that human's are comfortable with them. There will be those who will embrace them, but if you look at our culture, what percentage of human beings still look to something new without trepidation? Especially, If It walks around like a human.

[marharth]

The topic is what people in the forum think about the morals and philosophy of it.

 

Society probably will oppose it as a whole, but that's not what the topic is about.

[HeyYou]

It's human nature to be irrational. Is racial prejudice rational? Is blindly applying stereotypes rational? Are emotions rational? Sure, we have the ABILITY to BE rational, but, that does not necessarily imply that we ALWAYS (or, in some case, even "mostly") are. In fact, you can find far more examples of IRRATIONAL behavior, than you can rational. Humans, for the most part, will first see "its a machine". It will have the same value to them as their toaster, or car, or some unknown employee, depending on what purpose it serves to them. Basically, they will be relegated to the ranks of second (third?) class citizens. For lack of a better term, odds are, they won't get citizenship either, as they weren't "born" at all. Of course, time requirements aside, any decent AI could learn the requisite material, and pass any knowledge tests for citizenship in a few short minutes. Would they be given that opportunity though? And what good is the 'word' of something (someone?) that places zero value on their honor, or what some other species thinks of them? Do you really care what the neighbors dog thinks of you? Does the neighbors dog care what you think of Him??

 

Im not sure about the point you are trying to make. ( I assume it's in response to my post, though) Are you saying that because humans are often irrational that denying other persons rights is ok? Please explain. Im also not sure of the relevance of your last question about the dog. We aren't talking about other entities with limited intellect. We are talking about another entity that has at-least equal intellect to our own, who is equally self aware, who is equally conscious, etc. Also, Im not saying that people are unlikely to treat a machine in this manner because it is different from them. Some likely would. The question that is being debated in this thread, however, is whether that machine ought to be treated that way.

 

Just as an aside, I have met dogs smarter than a fair few humans...... :D

 

I am not trying to justify it in any way. I am simply telling it like it is. This is what is gonna happen, and why. Also consider: AI is going to be able to learn anything in seconds, never forget a lesson, be able to disconnect emotion/bias/pre-concpetions from their thinking, to them, WE will be the dogs.

[kvnchrist]

The topic is what people in the forum think about the morals and philosophy of it.

 

Society probably will oppose it as a whole, but that's not what the topic is about.

 

 

Dude, I know that, but I've already commented on that. It's unethical to mistreat others, but one must see them as those deserving of such equality, which is what I'm getting at.

[stars2heaven]

The topic is what people in the forum think about the morals and philosophy of it.

 

Society probably will oppose it as a whole, but that's not what the topic is about.

 

 

Dude, I know that, but I've already commented on that. It's unethical to mistreat others, but one must see them as those deserving of such equality, which is what I'm getting at.

 

The statement you make here is in direct conflict with an earlier statement that you made in this thread. This is the quote:

 

Nothing man-made can be equal to man, and if we grant them the same rights as humans, then we degrade humanity to that of a machine.

 

Your statement here implies that machines could never be considered the equals of a human, regardless of their capabilities. Thus, they could never be deserving of the same rights as humans. It is not a statement of what society thinks, but what is actually the case. Do you no longer defend this position?

Edited October 2, 2011 by stars2heaven

[stars2heaven]

 

Just as an aside, I have met dogs smarter than a fair few humans...... :D

 

I am not trying to justify it in any way. I am simply telling it like it is. This is what is gonna happen, and why. Also consider: AI is going to be able to learn anything in seconds, never forget a lesson, be able to disconnect emotion/bias/pre-concpetions from their thinking, to them, WE will be the dogs.

 

Are you saying that because a machine could possibly become far more intelligent and generally more capable than us mentally that an A.I. should be deprived of the same rights as humans?

[Aurielius]

 

Just as an aside, I have met dogs smarter than a fair few humans...... :D

 

I am not trying to justify it in any way. I am simply telling it like it is. This is what is gonna happen, and why. Also consider: AI is going to be able to learn anything in seconds, never forget a lesson, be able to disconnect emotion/bias/pre-concpetions from their thinking, to them, WE will be the dogs.

 

Are you saying that because a machine could possibly become far more intelligent and generally more capable than us mentally that an A.I. should be deprived of the same rights as humans?

Lets take your logic all the way down the road. We create the AI, we enfranchise the AI to be equal then the AI evolves far past us to the point that is comparable to humans to chimpanzees. Just how willing do you think the AI's will be to grant you equal rights? There is this naive assumption of the supposed morality of the AI's that has no basis other than wishful thinking. All equal rights adherents seem quite willing to grant coequal status to a MACHINE , if we were talking about granting Dolphins equal rights that at least would be assigning rights to a proven socially benign species that we could coexist with. Fortunately mankind has shown a predilection for remaining at the apex of the planetary species pyramid so this is so much youthful idealism not a pragmatic view of how we operate as a species.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Aurielius

[kvnchrist]

The topic is what people in the forum think about the morals and philosophy of it.

 

Society probably will oppose it as a whole, but that's not what the topic is about.

 

 

Dude, I know that, but I've already commented on that. It's unethical to mistreat others, but one must see them as those deserving of such equality, which is what I'm getting at.

 

The statement you make here is in direct conflict with an earlier statement that you made in this thread. This is the quote:

 

Nothing man-made can be equal to man, and if we grant them the same rights as humans, then we degrade humanity to that of a machine.

 

Your statement here implies that machines could never be considered the equals of a human, regardless of their capabilities. Thus, they could never be deserving of the same rights as humans. It is not a statement of what society thinks, but what is actually the case. Do you no longer defend this position?

 

 

Which part of "one must see them as those deserving of such equality" don't you understand?

 

My last statement was for society as a whole. Most people clean their consciences just far enough to make them feel better about what they will allow, and then they go their own way. Didn't we free the slaves, just to stand aside, while the Jim Crow laws were created and enforced, for how many years?

 

Also my statement is correct that no object created is equal to it's creator. When has this ever not been true.

[Ghogiel]

So based on assumptions that any type of AI would be maligned towards humans they should by default be oppressed.