Should we grant artificial intelligence rights?

Author: Analgesic.Spectre ,

Posts

Total: 45
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
Or perhaps artificial intelligence would naturally derive ethical rights, given it reaches a threshold (say self-awareness).

This encourages us to ask for the components or values that constitute an entity to earn rights. Is being human sufficient? Should rights scale with intelligence (i.e. a dog has some rights, but the smarter human has far more)? What is it exactly that determines something has a right, and should that right be extended to artificial intelligence?

For example, in 2017, a robot named "Sophia" was granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia (https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/26/saudi-arabia-robot-citizen-sophia/). Should this have happened?

Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
There's no point giving them rights. We observe the rights of others as an evolutionary mechanism to foster prosocial behaviour and this increase our survival odds. In the case of AI, we control their existence and so they don't need rights. Furthermore, it's not a great idea to personify an inanimate object. 
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @Smithereens
There's no point giving them rights. We observe the rights of others as an evolutionary mechanism to foster prosocial behaviour and this increase our survival odds.
That seems pretty reasonable.

In the case of AI, we control their existence and so they don't need rights.
Currently, we do control AI to that degree. However, if we develop future AI to have the ability to control their existence, what then?

Furthermore, it's not a great idea to personify an inanimate object. 
Depending on your definition of "inanimate", current AI is capable of moving (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78-1MlkxyqI). Future AI could be capable of consciousness. You'll need to define your "inanimate" more stringently, because I've used acceptable definitions (power of motion; consciousness) which clearly contradict your usage (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inanimate).

Furthermore, anthropomorphism (personifying an inanimate object) is arguably a great idea, despite being prima facie irrational: "we have presented multiple examples where anthropomorphic form in appearance and behavior can help a robot to perform its tasks successfully by eliciting desired behaviours from human interaction partners." (http://www.bartneck.de/publications/2015/anthropomorphismOpportunitiesChallenges/). 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,834
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
I completely support there being rights for AI if they become adaptive and self conscious.


Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @RationalMadman
I completely support there being rights for AI if they become adaptive and self conscious.

How would you justify this?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,834
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
The same way you justify animal rights.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @RationalMadman
In that AI rights should be lesser than that of humans, despite humans being "adaptive and self conscious", too? Not all animals are adaptive/self-conscious (depending on the definitions you're implying).
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,834
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
I am of huge opposition to the word 'should' being involved in law.

Animal rights maybe 'should' be EQUAL to humans but aren't. To me, there's absolutely nothing in animals rights that isn't able to be applied to AI that shows personality and would go further to give them more rights than the average animal if they show potential to contribute to human society well.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @RationalMadman
I am of huge opposition to the word 'should' being involved in law.
Why? How are laws meant to be proposed?

Animal rights maybe 'should' be EQUAL to humans but aren't.
The point of this thread is to discuss what should be the case, not what is the case.

would go further to give them more rights than the average animal if they show potential to contribute to human society well
So rights are linked to potential for contribution to human society. But you previously stated that animal rights "maybe should" be equal to humans, but aren't. If rights are to potential for contribution to human society, then why would you allow for discussion on animal rights being equal to human rights, given that potential of animal contribution to human society is less than that of humans?

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,834
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
Their bodies are so contributive that in my eyes some disabled and/or lazy humans are ridiculous to be considered deserving of more rights than the said animal.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @RationalMadman
Are you going to respond to my questions about what you say? Or are you you going to continue to spout a new assertion with every response?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,834
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
I was explaining the answer to this:
So rights are linked to potential for contribution to human society. But you previously stated that animal rights "maybe should" be equal to humans, but aren't. If rights are to potential for contribution to human society, then why would you allow for discussion on animal rights being equal to human rights, given that potential of animal contribution to human society is less than that of humans?

Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @RationalMadman
Great.

Now would you like to address your inconsistency suggested in that post?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,834
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
I did by saying the following.

Their bodies are so contributive that in my eyes some disabled and/or lazy humans are ridiculous to be considered deserving of more rights than the said animal.

Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @RationalMadman
I'll make the inconsistency clearer:

A. You said that, "I am of huge opposition to the word 'should' being involved in law."

B. Then you said that, "animal rights maybe 'should' be EQUAL to humans but aren't."

C. Then you said, "[you] would go further to give them more rights than the average animal if they show potential to contribute to human society well".

D. One of the last things you said was, "their bodies are so contributive that in my eyes some disabled and/or lazy humans are ridiculous to be considered deserving of more rights than the said animal."

If you say B, in the context of A, then you've conceded that there should be no discussion on animal rights. Yet you continue to argue in C and D that we *should* change the amount of rights animals get, given how some contribute more than humans.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,834
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
I was assuming you care about what should be given the spirit of this thread. If you don't then you're a psychopath who I'd be happy to prove to be morally devoid and demonise in front of others.

Politics is a game and in that game we can justify raping sentient AI because they were not organically formed if we with to like @Smithereens did but I prefer to be more consistent as irrationality disgusts me.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @RationalMadman
You're either trolling, too stupid to comprehend your inconsistency, or blind with emotion. There's no way you could have processed what I said, comprehended the accusation and responded within 2 minutes (as you did, seeing the timestamps).

In any case, you're no longer worth my time here.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,834
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
You're either trolling, too stupid to comprehend your inconsistency, or blind with emotion. 

I couldn't give less of a sh** what I'm worth to your worthless time. xD I am smart enough to comprehend what you wrote at that speed.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,834
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
I apologise for my tone.

I am curious why I am a waste of time and why you find my arguments unrelated to the topic.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @RationalMadman
I accept your apology. I don't personally have anything against you, and nor do I think you're a waste of time. I know that you encountered some brutal things in your upbringing, none of which was your fault, and I admire the fact that you still have the strength to forge a path forward. I also think the people whom attempt to bully you for it (Imabench, Smithereens etc.) are weak and cowardly.

Just to be clear, I have a hair-trigger response to comments I don't find accurate. Whilst I regulate this mechanism irl (it's not prudent to fight every battle), I have no reason to restrain it online. This is one of the few places where a man can truly engage in rational discourse, without having to appeal to people's emotional heuristics constantly. It's nothing personal against you.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
"There is no right to deny freedom to any object with a mind advanced enough to grasp theconcept and desire the state."
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @drafterman
Whilst I do admire the poetic aesthetic of a concise quote, we're capable of far greater analysis and musing, especially given the sluggish nature in which this conversation takes place. 
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
It's an accurate summation of my beliefs. I don't think we should deny rights to a mind capable of articulating a desire for them!
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @drafterman
It's an accurate summation of my beliefs. I don't think we should deny rights to a mind capable of articulating a desire for them!
I'm not interested in a summation of your beliefs, and nor is any keen mind. We're interested in sustained reasoning and evidence first, and once that requirement is fulfilled, then we will concern ourselves with your summation.

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
Cool. Well, as I see it, the only basis on which rights have ever been granted is in response to mind articulating a demand for them. There is no other basis.