[Discussion Post] At what point (if at all) should an AI have natural rights?
100 percent of the liquid rewards for this post will go towards rewarding engaging and insightful comments. . .
Topic for Discussion
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Hello everyone! This famous sentence from the Declaration of Independence summarizes the principles at the core of American society and government. The enlightened idea that all people are endowed with certain rights which cannot be taken away still rings true in our modern society. But as history has run its course, the extent of these rights has been debated time and time again, and now, in our modern society, certain questions arise.
With the recent pandemic, my father (@remlaps) and I have been watching The Twilight Zone on Netflix. One of the episodes gave me the idea for this week's discussion post.
To summarize this episode while avoiding spoilers, it is about a man sentenced to solitude on an asteroid. One of the people in charge of bringing the man resources pities him, and brings the man a robot named Alicia to keep him company. Interestingly enough, the episode is from the 1960s, and yet its conclusion still poses several questions about natural rights which are still relevant to our modern society:
Does an AI have natural rights? If not, should it? At what point, and to what extent?
Please feel free to discuss this in the comments!
The Initiative
Right now, it is important to develop the discussion aspect of Steem. In order to do this, the experimental account, @penny4thoughts was created by @remlaps.
If the account (@penny4thoughts) is set as a beneficiary, it will evenly distribute the liquid portion of the post's rewards to the authors of comments that the post author upvotes with 100 percent voting power. For this post, and all future [Discussion Posts] in the category 'penny4thoughts', I will be setting @penny4thoughts as a beneficiary for 100 percent of the posts' rewards, and I will monitor the discussion and upvote valuable contributions.
No
No, AI don't have feelings(fake feeling), can't fear(fake fear) die because don't have biological body. Artificial intelligence only simulates what was programmed to do.
In essence, I would say that an AI does exactly what the human brain does, it processes data and decides how to utilize that data. The difference between an AI and a human is in complexity of ability to understand, and obviously in emotions. Current AI is nowhere near the level of humans in either of those regards (and it may never get to that level).
I can understand where you are coming from. The question becomes for me that if an AI gets to the level of development that it is capable of processing data in a cognitive manner, and it is capable of feeling emotions, should it have rights?
Since artificial intelligence has neither a biological body nor an animal instinct, so even if it has emotions(how to know?), I believe that it should not have rights.
Maybe in future i can change my opinion... but currently i have lack of knowledge about emotions in AI.
What natural right could I give my phone or my smart coffee maker, programmed to strain coffee at 3am?
I will continue according to your answer ...
Those aren't really AI (artificial intelligence). I was thinking much more sophisticated AI than a smartphone chat bot. For instance, the episode I linked to of the Twilight Zone has an AI robot resembling and acting like a human female.
Okay, I'm not going to link AI to the human form.
AI (Artificial Intelligence), It can be included in any form.
The fact that it is a human form should not influence, it is still AI (Artificial Intelligence).
To some extent, I think the problem is that when he is in human form, he believes that he is actually human.
For example, from an ethical point of view, it should not take the form of a person. If you see a machine equipped with artificial intelligence (AI), you can destroy it. If you feel it threatens you.
But if this same machine has the shape of a tender girl, perhaps we hesitate to destroy it, that could put our lives at risk.
Why would an AI need rights? They do not have souls and feelings. They are not living creatures. They do not have feelings. Giving natural rights to an AI is probably a bad (or even terrible) idea. Animals should have natural rights, because they have souls and feelings. They are living creatures.
I have often wondered about the arc of animal rights going into the future. I hope it is story of progress.
I will agree with you that AI do not have feelings, but I would ask: how can you measure what has a soul and what doesn't have a soul? Some religions believe that everything in the universe has its own soul. I don't really consider a soul to be a strong factor to consider.
My question is if an AI is ever capable of having its own feelings, should it have rights?
I would say that animals do have rights to some extent. They are protected from things like dog fights and abuse, and there are rules stopping habitat destruction for endangered species.
As-of now, no, I don't think that AI should have any rights.
In the future, I think it all depends. I'm aware of two schools of thought on the future of AI. Some people think that human decisions are purely driven by computation, and that eventually computers will be functionally equivalent to humans. This is known as "strong AI".
A second school of thought, however, says that there's something unique about humans, call it the soul, or spirit, or whatever you want. Whatever it is, there is more to human thought than mere computation. In this view, computers may simulate human behavior perfectly, but they'll always be a lower form of "intelligence". This concept is known as "weak AI".
Personally, I'm in the weak AI camp, until we learn differently, so I don't think that AI systems will be entitled to rights at any time in the foreseeable future.
On the other hand, if those in the strong AI camp turn out to be correct, then rights for AI may be appropriate -- which opens a new can of worms.
As long as AI does not have rights, AI can't replace the human race because the machines will always be dependent on human economic decisions. People will only keep machines running if it makes economic sense, which means that human machine-owners need human customers, and humans control the distribution of resources.
On the other hand, if the strong AI viewpoint is correct, and machines acquire rights (specifically, the right to own property), then humans will be competing with machines for resources, and if the AI outgrows human capabilities, the machines may threaten the continued existence of humanity. (not in a Terminator-style war, but just by out-competing us for the resources that we need to survive.)
An open question is how an external observer could ever know whether a machine that appeared to exhibit the strong form of AI is really intelligent, or if it is merely a simulation of intelligence. And another related question that's playing out at this very moment is this: CAN AI SYSTEMS HOLD PATENT FOR THEIR INVENTIONS?
I know my comment is a bit out of topic and i do apologize about it... but since both of Us want Steem and Steemit to be back where it should be i hope it will not upset you this fast and short "memo"
As you already know @steemitblog added 100 DAYS OF STEEM : Day 14 - The Contest Support Fund and i came up with a great contest that will bring a lot of excitement and engagement and i really hope you will take part of it... of course if you like the idea!
Hope to see You there...
thanks a lot for your support !!!
(if you dont want these or consider it spam then please leave a reply to this comment instead of downvoting and i will follow up)
unless stated otherwise, you receive these because you voted on a @goldmanmorgan post
$trendotoken
Thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion! If you wish to contribute to this week's discussion, the topic is:
Should we continue the corona virus lockdown?