Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
General AI should have fundamental rights
Fundamental rights shouldn't apply to non-human beings.
Human rights are a device intended to address specific issues related to human beings.
The relevance of human rights would depend on how AI works and may be a poor fit. We cannot know until we actually produce a general conscious AI.
Rights of AI should be grounded in their own standing, not simply extending human rights.
AI lacks the emotions of a biologically based being.
AIs are nothing but metal and a bunch of circuits, thus, they should have the same fundamental rights as my toaster, even if we get to the point that we can't differentiate a human from an AI, it will still be nothing but an imitation of what we are.
A general AI advanced enough to have bearing on this discussion would be capable of developing its own protections, with no need for humans to extend human rights
Application of rights shouldn't be based on being human.
Aliens could use the same reasoning against humans.
Animal rights apply (as they ethically should) to non-humans. Any sentient being has as much a right as humans to avoid suffering and pursue well-being.
Rights should apply to anything capable of well-being or suffering.
This is a similar argument to when slaves were viewed as
property/ not human
. After a while (
) they were recognised as human and got human rights
Human rights already apply to corporations.
To make this claim is to be speciecistic, as in
description of the term, as a logic fallacy that grants humans rights that no other species can attain, simply because of the fact that a human is a human. Circulum viciosum.
Were a close acquaintance to oneself revealed to have been a machine with human aesthetics, but behaviorally indistinguishable from a human, one would not be able to hold that the entity was not alive.