Does AI deserve "human" rights?

[Sava]

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?

We don't even allocate the same rights to every human being at this moment. let alone other types of beings.

[Deleted]

At that point the development has gone way too far, so hell no!

[zorkuus]

There is no reason that this AI would care.

Not that I think it is a good idea for ethical reasons, but if a truly sentient AI is ever created, there is no reason that it must be able to feel.

If it was sentient it wouldn't go without saying that it couldn't gain emotions without us programming it with the ability to feel.

[semaphore]

If it was sentient it wouldn't go without saying that it couldn't gain emotions without us programming it with the ability to feel.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here (is "wouldn't go without saying" meant to be negative?). But an AI that is sentient doesn't necessarily need to have emotions. It's not like we would create sentient AI's through evolving them in such a way that emotions becomes an evolutionary advantage.

Machine life would by its very nature be significantly different from biological life. There is no reason to assume that AI will be able to feel as humans do. Organic beings have emotions and instincts because that is the way life has evolved (on this planet). We feel pleasure or fear or sadness because of our brain chemistry, and not simply because of our awareness. It does not come automatically with achieving sentience. An AI that becomes self-aware isn't going to suddenly acquire self-preservation instincts, or compassion, or murderous intents, much less a desire to vote.

Emotions has to come from somewhere.

[Authary]

And what would this AI think of us if we placed such restrictions upon its existence?

As for #2: No, this wouldn't be a partnership. It would be one party exploiting the other while giving next to nothing in return.


??? Arer you trying to build a straw man?

What do you think of the restrictions of your body ? Nothing. You were born with it and your intellect is based on it.

And I'm not building a strawman, this thread is full of anthropocentrism. AI is my field and it angers me SO MUCH to see words like "feelings" in this context.

[zorkuus]

What do you think of the restrictions of your body ? Nothing. You were born with it and your intellect is based on it.

That's a bad analogy. I wasn't specifically designed like this by another intelligence (as far as I'm aware).

AI is my field and it angers me SO MUCH to see words like "feelings" in this context.

Why? If you created a sentient intelligence how can you rule out completely that it cannot gain emotions on its own?

[semaphore]

That's a bad analogy. I wasn't specially designed like this by another intelligence (as far as I'm aware).

Then why do you think the AI will be able to feel as you do, when the AI is designed - unlike you?

[Ynna]

We don't even allocate the same rights to every human being at this moment. let alone other types of beings.

I'm sure we can agree that it's wrong that not every human has the same basic rights.

[Shadoweye]

No, they would not deserve any rights given to man. They are considered machines, or tools meant for certain tasks, thus the point they were created. They weren't made to think, they weren't made to have feelings, they weren't made for any other purpose other than serving and making our lives easier.

[Reyzzz]

Do they? Never heard of that.

http://www.cetaceanrights.org/

[Valort]

It's artificial. Not natural.

So no.

Every test-tube baby in the world says "hi".

Just because something doesn't happen through nature, but through human interference, doesn't make it any less. A cloned sheep is still a sheep. A test tube baby is still a baby. A walking, talking, humanoid machine with an AI advanced enough to develop its own personality through quantum calculations is no different than a human brain making the same processes through chemistry.

A being which is self aware, capable of feelings, and individual, is no different than a human on a sentient level.

Alas, can't expect everyone to understand it in a world where the Ku klux klan still exists. If some people still aren't capable of accepting the right of other HUMANS to exist, what chance do AIs have?

[skatblast]

Obviously not... there you go pretty easy question

[inux94]

Yes.

If artificial intelligence gets to a point where they can feel, then they should get some rights so they're just not treated as the way dogs/any other household pet is.

[DeltrusDisc]

AI =/= human.

Therefore AI should not have HUMAN rights.

[semaphore]

Yes.

If artificial intelligence gets to a point where they can feel, then they should get some rights so they're just not treated as the way dogs/any other household pet is.

Dogs have feelings too. What is this discrimination against organic lifeforms? :<

[Ghul]

ermmm the ai would have been created by humans... right?
so the way it thinks has been created by humans too... right?
so its program can also be changed by their creators... right?

so voting robots would be a way to influence votings to increase your standpoint... i dont see this working honestly.. people creating machines to vote for them, whats the point of voting anymore at this point? oh its the same as in the past, the one with more money(more robots) wins the vote... okay then carry on and give those ai's the right of voting ... Oo

[N-7]

ermmm the ai would have been created by humans... right?
so the way it thinks has been created by humans too... right?
so its program can also be changed by their creators... right?

so voting robots would be a way to influence votings to increase your standpoint... i dont see this working honestly.. people creating machines to vote for them, whats the point of voting anymore at this point? oh its the same as in the past, the one with more money(more robots) wins the vote... okay then carry on and give those ai's the right of voting ... Oo

The idea that is being discussed here is an AI which think for itself.

[Grizzly Willy]

ermmm the ai would have been created by humans... right?
so the way it thinks has been created by humans too... right?
so its program can also be changed by their creators... right?

so voting robots would be a way to influence votings to increase your standpoint... i dont see this working honestly.. people creating machines to vote for them, whats the point of voting anymore at this point? oh its the same as in the past, the one with more money(more robots) wins the vote... okay then carry on and give those ai's the right of voting ... Oo

How is that different than having children and raising them to be biased towards certain ideals, ensuring they always vote a certain way? People can be controlled and manipulated, too.

[Tore]

How is that different than having children and raising them to be biased towards certain ideals, ensuring they always vote a certain way? People can be controlled and manipulated, too.

At least that takes 18 years, as opposed to flooding the voting booths in one month during a current election. In 18 years chances are whatever legislation you were hoping to swing has already been established and grounded and accepted. For most small issues anyway.

[Grizzly Willy]

At least that takes 18 years, as opposed to flooding the voting booths in one month during a current election. In 18 years chances are whatever legislation you were hoping to swing has already been established and grounded and accepted. For most small issues anyway.

Excuse me for a moment, I would just like to offer up a hypothetical. [I realize these aren't exactly the most valid form of proving a point, but just humor me.]

Suppose we could clone people. And not only clone a person, but make an exact replica. Same values, morals - they are virtually indistinguishable from the original. And let's say that we can not only clone a person, but mass-produce them, much like robots. At this point, would they deserve the right to vote? They certainly aren't natural, but they are human. At least, more human that the army of robot voters.

This also exemplifies my problem with the whole "they aren't natural, therefore they don't get rights" reasoning. You know what else isn't "natural?" Humans born through in vitro fertilization aren't as natural as those born through conventional means.

We also do plenty of things that aren't natural. It isn't natural to communicate using devices that are comprised of synthetic plastics and metals with people on the other side of the planet. It isn't natural to take just about any drug out there in order to cure a genetic ailment. It isn't natural to use tools like glasses to overcome our genetic shortcomings. Hell, it isn't natural to transplant organs, especially not from one living subject to another. So why does it matter that something is natural or not, when we are probably the least natural entities on this planet?