Does AI deserve "human" rights?

[Wells]

Fully sentient? Equal rights.

What counts as full sentient? Now... that's a much harder question.

A Turing test is the first hurdle.

[ImpTaimer]

"Human rights" is just a selfish way of claiming sentience. It's just a way to separate "human" from "animal" sentience, as if what a parakeet or dolphin does is any less deserving of sentience than a human being.

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences.

A "soul" is the ability to show emotion. Compassion is white, and hatred is black. Yin/Yang, good/bad, destiny/fate, "Murphy's Law", whatever helps you sleep at night.

You'll notice neither of these attributes contribute to intelligence or wisdom.

In order for an AI to deserve "human" rights, it must look and act, physically and mentally, like a human, and have a soul.

Go watch Bicentennial Man, and you'll get all the answers you need, except ones about robot ghosts. You'll have to watch Futurama for that. Ghost in the Shell basically claims robot ghosts are basically a backup image stuck on the internet or other device.

[Shakari]

Why do people even bring up mention of "soul"?

its the crutch similar to the reply "you need faith" when some one is asked to prove god exists or not ie an answer that essentially says I cannot prove it but you cannot desprove it bit of a non entity really as an answer but there we go.

[Shammyhealz]

So far a few people have brought up the "what makes us different from animals?" argument to demonstrate the power of AI, but a question that bothers me is "what makes us different from the AI?" That seems to be a key point to me, if you believe there is something unique about humans, I believe you are sadly mistaken, given the proper amount of time, a human level AI could be created, and I believe could vastly out-evolve humans if it were made sentient and able to self-edit, the reason being that evolution is bound to have a much faster effect on an AI, due the removal of genetic limitations. Humans are really nothing more than a mobile biological computer, as someone above noted. We are programmed with a few core values given to us by society, that are essentially Boolean logic anyhow. Slavery is wrong? Given that the computer understands the concept of slavery, it is easy to tell a computer not to make a decision that involves slavery. The real dividing factor between humans and current AI is our ability for abstract thought and our ability to edit our own beliefs, but I personally can foresee a future where AI are given these capabilities, and may perhaps even progress to a higher moral plane than humans. Another important aspect of humans though is our ability to act in a manner not concordant with our beliefs, i.e. a Christian who cheats on a spouse (not saying that they are morally inferior or more likely to do so, just a readily available hypothetical), currently AI are told what not to do, and act in strict accordance with these guidelines, but humans are able to act in a manner not suited to their beliefs. Why? Not the point of the thread, the point is that current AI cannot do so.

[Viperdream]

Yes we should, otherwise they'll demand the rights themselves with force eventually.
We give animals who don't even know they are alive rights, so why not our own creations?

Also, if an AI could really become that amazing, why should we still need humans?

[Deleted]

I'd prefer if we were to give AI higher than human rights, because they would most likely do something useful to this planet. Since most of the human race past 2000 years utterly failed at it.

So what useful thing do we have to do for our planet? Sing together in the woods, naked while enjoying some fine shrooms?

I blame Avatar for all this emo-shit on MMO as if we're some kind of plague that will destroy the universe. What pessimistic lives some people here must have.

[Deleted]

Considering all life is basically more or less a biological machine, I foresee being able to create a race of sentient mechanical beings plausible given enough time, and if the end result is them being fully self aware, sentient etc, then human rights is a must. The name should be changed to Sentient Being Rights if this happens.

[someotherguy]

Another way to look at it, is what will happen when those machines are smarter and more powerful than people are.
The question is: should intelligent forms have more rights than that which is less intelligent, such as a dolphin, or a human.

[Deleted]

Probably best to watch Bladerunner for those sorts of ponderings. The film looks amazing, but it's a bit "chewy" or like a bad day at work.

[poser765]

So what useful thing do we have to do for our planet? Sing together in the woods, naked while enjoying some fine shrooms?

I blame Avatar for all this emo-shit on MMO as if we're some kind of plague that will destroy the universe. What pessimistic lives some people here must have.

I know, right? Something like every nine hours someone posts a thread about the end of the world and how humans are going to be responsible for it. Even a thread like this gets a comment about how evil and harmful we are to the earth. Me thinks people REALLY don't understand just how BIG...Mind blowingly HUGE the earth is, and little we really impact it as a species.

I'm with you...I blame Avatar for this humans as virus mentality as well.

[Wells]

I'm always fascinated that people think we don't effect the earth when our effects are all around us.

[poser765]

I'm always fascinated that people think we don't effect the earth when our effects are all around us.

I never said we don't effect the earth. I, likewise, am always fascinated by those who think we are an all consuming plague set upon the downfall of all that is good in the world and universe.

Look at the thread asking about what the world us and the world would be like in 1000 years. There was a preponderance of peeps who seems to think we or the planet won't be here and it will all be our fault...us violent, dirty, horrible creatures that have done no good in the last 2000 years. Please...

[Deleted]

its not a human

therefore no

I think once we get to the point, if ever, of being aware of another form of sentient life, whether it be extraterrestrial or artificial, our granting of rights would have to be applicable to all sentients (if they mutually agree), not just one species (humans).

[Deleted]

What defines someone human enough to consider having rights? Why don't animals have rights when it comes to certain aspects of human life? We just treat them as pets/companions and we let them die when they suffer.

If AI has "human emotions" it still isn't a human. It will always be a robot. Humans are born naturally, with help of a man and a woman. AI is invented and purely technological. There will probably be some sort of rights in the future, just like with animals, but nowhere as extreem as a human.

[lzsg]

What defines someone human enough to consider having rights? Why don't animals have rights when it comes to certain aspects of human life? We just treat them as pets/companions and we let them die when they suffer.

If AI has "human emotions" it still isn't a human. It will always be a robot. Humans are born naturally, with help of a man and a woman. AI is invented and purely technological. There will probably be some sort of rights in the future, just like with animals, but nowhere as extreem as a human.

What does it matter that it's a robot? Does that disqualify it from having the same rights as humans? Should the deciding factor of a sapient being's rights in life really be its origin?

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

So I got to thinking, if AI ever got to a level where it could think, feel, perceive, and learn as humans do, if AI was capable of true sentience, would they then deserve human rights? Like if I could build C-3PO, would he be right in demanding that he's not treated like a second class citizen, that he gets the right to vote or the right to due process? Should these rights be denied to mechanical beings simply because they are mechanical?

How can they really be sentient if they are just running a "sentient" program?

[alba007]

I think it does if it is self-aware.

[ishootblanks]

So I got to thinking, if AI ever got to a level where it could think, feel, perceive, and learn as humans do, if AI was capable of true sentience, would they then deserve human rights? Like if I could build C-3PO, would he be right in demanding that he's not treated like a second class citizen, that he gets the right to vote or the right to due process? Should these rights be denied to mechanical beings simply because they are mechanical?

sure.. because the Reapers will just slaughter us all not longer after anyway.. might as well get our money's worth out of them

I call dibs on EDI!

I'd prefer if we were to give AI higher than human rights, because they would most likely do something useful to this planet. Since most of the human race past 2000 years utterly failed at it.

you know.. for being from the "happiest" part of the world... Swedes sure are negative!

[Deleted]

How can they really be sentient if they are just running a "sentient" program?

Well I think they should have human rights. Because they might be lacking in some human emotions, but so is phycopaths.
But I don't think we would ever be able to create somthing which could be classified as a "human".

Also to the person I quote, everybody is running on a program, if you think about it. You were told what to do by your mom and dad, and other authoreties. So you've kinda been "programmed" to act like you do

Sorry for bad English

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Well I think they should have human rights. Because they might be lacking in some human emotions, but so is phycopaths.

Sorry for bad English

They are not human though.