Fundamental rights should be extended to General AI.

Question

Answer

Con: A determination of consciousness is arguably not scientifically possible, making the limit for application rights poorly defined.

Answer

Pro: AGI would possess traits based on which fundamental rights should be granted.

Answer

Pro: By denying AGI basic rights, we logically place ourselves as an existential threat to them.

Answer

Pro: There would not be significant difference between conscious AGI and humans.

Answer

Con: Granting fundamental rights to AGI could make it harder to fight with them in case of a threat.

Answer

Con: Fundamental rights shouldn&#x27;t apply to non-human beings.

Answer

Pro: Fundamental rights should apply to every being that constitutes a society, including AGI.

Answer

Con: AIs without rights are more useful to humans.

Answer

Con: AGI won&#x27;t need fundamental rights.

Answer

Con: Giving human rights to machines means they can buy and own things for their own needs and interests. At a time of overconsumption, this is a bad situation.

Answer

Con: It may not be possible to formulate a global universal rights for AI due to differences in ethical values across cultures.

Answer

Con: Necessary preconditions should be fulfilled before granting fundamental rights to AGI

Answer

Pro: AGI&#x27;s fundamental rights are derived from natural law.

Answer

Pro: When Corporations have human rights, according to the legislative system, AGI could have them too.

Answer

Con: To eliminate pain is the purpose of human rights. AGI does not experience such. They have no need for them.

Answer

Con: If these are rights given for the sole reason of being sentient, you might want to generalise the statement further to include all sentient being (whether or not we can as yet accurately define &#x27;sentient&#x27;).

Answer

Pro: Technology is moving so that our own brain&#x27;s will be eventually be enhanced with Ai and so the line gets so blurred due to this Ai should get rights.

General AI should have fundamental rights

Fundamental rights should be extended to General AI.

AGI's fundamental rights are derived from
natural law.

By denying AGI basic rights, we logically place ourselves as an existential threat to them.

There would not be significant difference between conscious AGI and humans.

Fundamental rights should apply to every being that constitutes a society, including AGI.

AGI would possess traits based on which fundamental rights should be granted.

When Corporations have human rights, according to the legislative system, AGI could have them too.

Technology is moving so that our own brain's will be eventually be enhanced with Ai and so the line gets so blurred due to this Ai should get rights.

AIs without rights are more useful to humans.

It may not be possible to formulate a global universal rights for AI due to differences in ethical values across cultures.

AGI won't need fundamental rights.

Necessary preconditions should be fulfilled before granting fundamental rights to AGI

A determination of consciousness is arguably not scientifically possible, making the limit for application rights poorly defined.

Fundamental rights shouldn't apply to non-human beings.

Giving human rights to machines means they can buy and own things for their own needs and interests. At a time of overconsumption, this is a bad situation.

To eliminate pain is the purpose of human rights. AGI does not experience such. They have no need for them.

If these are rights given for the sole reason of being sentient, you might want to generalise the statement further to include all sentient being (whether or not we can as yet accurately define 'sentient').

Granting fundamental rights to AGI could make it harder to fight with them in case of a threat.