Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
General AI should have fundamental rights
Not granting AGI fundamental rights would increase the likelihood of human abuses towards AGI, thereby degenerating civil societies.
Not granting rights to conscious AI would be essentially recreating slavery through technological advance. Slavery is accepted to be immoral.
Human abusers are less likely to be prosecuted, e.g. when committing sexual assault towards an AI.
To not give rights to AIs now could not be problematic in the present because it is easy to distinguish them from us, but it could create habits that we will reproduce on distant future artificial entities that we can't distinguish from humans.
If it was legal for humans to harm AGI, humans could potentially foster harmful behaviors against other humans as well.
The existence of rights does not necessarily preclude their violation. If some lawful body "recognized" or "affirmed" AI rights, that would have no effect without parallel laws which explicitly prohibited abusive behaviour towards AI's with attached sanctions for their violation.
While this point is valid, it has low relevance compared to other arguments brought forward by both sides, partly because it doesn't feature a credible causal link between the prediction and its premises, and also because by design its not a matter of urgency.
Many artifacts and species are treated gently by humans, without having human rights themselves. Your cat, your iPhone, etc. Moreover, many humans are violated or disadvantaged despite having human rights.
This implies that a specific version of human society is desirable (where abuses of inanimate entities do not happen). However, there is no reason to think that such a society is desirable as it would limit (if even slightly) human freedom.