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

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Who said legal opinion?

Whether this hypothetical AI should have rights is a philosophical question, not a legal one, and this particular episode of Start Trek dealt with it particularly well.

You can disagree with the arguments or the conclusion if you want. The real or perceived "liberalness" of the writer seems irrelevant to me.

I was being droll in saying it's settled though. That much is true.

 

Here is the synopsis if you want to peruse:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Measure_Of_A_Man_%28episode%29

Edited September 29, 2011 by Quetzlsacatanango

[Aurielius]

Who said legal opinion?

Whether this hypothetical AI should have rights is a philosophical question, not a legal one, and this particular episode of Start Trek dealt with it particularly well.

You can disagree with the arguments or the conclusion if you want. The real or perceived "liberalness" of the writer seems irrelevant to me.

I was being droll in saying it's settled though. That much is true.

 

Here is the synopsis if you want to peruse:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Measure_Of_A_Man_%28episode%29

Have been a trekkie since before you were born can recall episode without reference, thanks anyway. Have stated my opinion in prior posts, reiteration of that would be redundant.

[marharth]

Can this please not turn into a star trek debate?

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Your position is not really based on the machine's intelligence, though.

Not wanting to be outcompeted by a super<something> machine is a perfectly legit argument, it's just not AI-specific. It could be super strong, be able to reproduce itself at amazing speed, etc... and the argument would be the same.

Sounds like we agree they probably deserve rights, you just think it would be stupid to give it to them. I might agree with that, depending on the nature of the machine.

[Aurielius]

Your position is not really based on the machine's intelligence, though.

Not wanting to be outcompeted by a super<something> machine is a perfectly legit argument, it's just not AI-specific. It could be super strong, be able to reproduce itself at amazing speed, etc... and the argument would be the same.

Sounds like we agree they probably deserve rights, you just think it would be stupid to give it to them. I might agree with that, depending on the nature of the machine.

If the machines were indoctrinated with Asimov's three laws I might be slightly more inclined to the assertion of their rights.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

That's a beautiful dream, but the point of Asimov's stories is to illustrate the flaws of the simplistic "robotic laws".

The plot of each shows what happens when an automaton follows them to the letter. Nothing good!

But I get what you're saying. Checks and balances. I can get behind that.

[marharth]

If the mind of the machine was the same, it would follow normal laws the same as humans.

[Aurielius]

That's a beautiful dream, but the point of Asimov's stories is to illustrate the flaws of the simplistic "robotic laws".

The plot of each shows what happens when an automaton follows them to the letter. Nothing good!

But I get what you're saying. Checks and balances. I can get behind that.

Are you not forgetting R. Daneel Olivaw and the Zero th Law? Even that becomes Deus ex Machina , if looked at from a human freedom of choice perspective.

[grannywils]

Isaac Asimov, one of my favorites.

[grannywils]

I will admit up front I have not been following this thread and have only briefly perused some of the posts. But my take on the OP's original question is this. "Artificial" Intelligence is artificial. Science "Fiction" is fiction. Science "Fantasy" is fantasy. Many of us, I include myself, enjoy the concept of Artificial Intelligence, and we know that robotics have a place in this world, particularly in the worlds of science and medicine. However, for me I think it is a bit ridiculous to contemplate the bestowing of rights on artificially created entities.