5 ms·

This very much reminds me of "The Measure of a Man" [1], one of my favorite episodes of Star Trek: TNG. Just as in this actual case AI rights are discussed, alb

by HMH 5y ago

This very much reminds me of "The Measure of a Man" [1], one of my favorite episodes of Star Trek: TNG. Just as in this actual case AI rights are discussed, albeit things are a little more dramatic than a ruling about patents. It has to be decided whether to Data, an android/machine, should be granted the same rights as to a person or if it is fine to dismantle him for research purposes without asking. While I agree with the current ruling in the UK, this statement does not sit too well with me: > "Only a person can have rights. A machine cannot," wrote Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing in her judgement. In my opinion this sets a bad precedent in case we ever achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI) [2], which I think is perfectly possible, especially considering that we humans are nothing but complicated biological machines. And I think an AGI should very much be considered a person. That's why I think the way how a US judge in a prior cases put it is more agreeable: > As technology evolves, there may come a time when artificial intelligence reaches a level of sophistication such that it might satisfy accepted meanings of inventorship. > But that time has not yet arrived, and, if it does, it will be up to Congress to decide how, if at all, it wants to expand the scope of patent law. But admittedly this is still all very hypothetical as I don't see AGI happening in the near future and for now there is no real problem. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_a_Man_%28Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_a_Man_%28Star_T... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...

chime 5y ago
> > "Only a person can have rights. A machine cannot," wrote Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing in her judgement. The fight will then be to get AGI classified as a person. If a corporation can have personhood, it is not impossible for AGI to have the same.
- rhino369 5y ago
  Corporate personhood is a misunderstood issue. They aren’t treated like a natural person. Corporations for example can’t be inventors on a patent either.
  - pnt12 5y ago
    I was wondering about this. What happens when someone invents a patent related to their work? It is strange to me if the IP belongs to the company but not the patent.
    - rhino369 5y ago
      Depends what the person's employment contract says. 95% of the time, the inventor is required to assign all rights to inventions related to the companies' work to the company. So you have inventor: Steve Wozniak; assignee: Apple Inc. Assignment allows the owner to be different from the inventor.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
  > If a corporation can have personhood, it is not impossible for AGI to have the same. The basis for corporate personhood is that it is made up of humans. The benefits of a corporation flow to real humans. Real humans actually direct how a corporation will be run. In the event of crimes, the corporate veil can be pierced to go after the real humans behind it. The “personhood” of corporations flows from the “personhood” of the humans behind it. Imagine a world where corporations held no rights at all. For example, while an individual human had the right to freedom of the press, a corporation like the New York Times would not have that right.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    A company is made up of humans. a corporation is a synthetic corpus created by legal dictum. It's all in the name.
  - 8note 5y ago
    If corporations gain rights from the people involved, I don't think those same people should be exempted from liability for what they do as a group
- GauntletWizard 5y ago
  Despite the consistent misinformation around it (very frequently flat out lies), Corporate Personhood does not mean that corporations are people. Corporate Personhood only acknowledges that corporations are groups of people, and that if it would be legal to gather a large group to do something, doing so under the auspices of a corporation is also legal. That is the precedent that Citizens United set - That it is as legal to make political contributions and endorsements as a corporation as you would as a rotary club. You can argue that the rotary club shouldn't be allowed to make contributions - And I would agree with you. I in fact, encourage it. People should not be able to hide their political contributions through entities like Trade Unions, which are actually the most pertinent part of that class.
- mr_toad 5y ago
  Much more likely us that there will be a push for patent rights to be granted to corporations, sidestepping the philosophy entirely.
pnt12 5y ago
I think that if we ever reach that breakthrough, then we can argue that an AGI deserves more rights than a non-AGI.

by HMH 5y ago

chime 5y ago

> > "Only a person can have rights. A machine cannot," wrote Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing in her judgement. The fight will then be to get AGI classified as a person. If a corporation can have personhood, it is not impossible for AGI to have the same.

rhino369 5y ago
Corporate personhood is a misunderstood issue. They aren’t treated like a natural person. Corporations for example can’t be inventors on a patent either.
- pnt12 5y ago
  I was wondering about this. What happens when someone invents a patent related to their work? It is strange to me if the IP belongs to the company but not the patent.
  - rhino369 5y ago
    Depends what the person's employment contract says. 95% of the time, the inventor is required to assign all rights to inventions related to the companies' work to the company. So you have inventor: Steve Wozniak; assignee: Apple Inc. Assignment allows the owner to be different from the inventor.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
> If a corporation can have personhood, it is not impossible for AGI to have the same. The basis for corporate personhood is that it is made up of humans. The benefits of a corporation flow to real humans. Real humans actually direct how a corporation will be run. In the event of crimes, the corporate veil can be pierced to go after the real humans behind it. The “personhood” of corporations flows from the “personhood” of the humans behind it. Imagine a world where corporations held no rights at all. For example, while an individual human had the right to freedom of the press, a corporation like the New York Times would not have that right.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  A company is made up of humans. a corporation is a synthetic corpus created by legal dictum. It's all in the name.
- 8note 5y ago
  If corporations gain rights from the people involved, I don't think those same people should be exempted from liability for what they do as a group
GauntletWizard 5y ago
Despite the consistent misinformation around it (very frequently flat out lies), Corporate Personhood does not mean that corporations are people. Corporate Personhood only acknowledges that corporations are groups of people, and that if it would be legal to gather a large group to do something, doing so under the auspices of a corporation is also legal. That is the precedent that Citizens United set - That it is as legal to make political contributions and endorsements as a corporation as you would as a rotary club. You can argue that the rotary club shouldn't be allowed to make contributions - And I would agree with you. I in fact, encourage it. People should not be able to hide their political contributions through entities like Trade Unions, which are actually the most pertinent part of that class.
mr_toad 5y ago
Much more likely us that there will be a push for patent rights to be granted to corporations, sidestepping the philosophy entirely.

pnt12 5y ago

I think that if we ever reach that breakthrough, then we can argue that an AGI deserves more rights than a non-AGI.