5 ms·
Whether an AGI should have rights depends on the specifics of the AGI. Being capable of acting in general environments, planning and taking actions in the worl
by drdeca 5y ago
Whether an AGI should have rights depends on the specifics of the AGI.
Being capable of acting in general environments, planning and taking actions in the world, etc. I think probably aren't in themselves enough for the agent to have moral patienthood.
But, that's not to say that it wouldn't be eventually possible to make an AI which was a moral patient (like, suppose it was not just able to plan taking itself and its own planning capabilities into account, but was in addition, also sapient, in the sense of having an internal experience like that of our own. In this case (e.g. perhaps a computer emulation of a human mind) then I'm fairly confident that such an agent would be a moral patient. Such an agent being copyable as data would no more prevent them from being a moral patient than having a magic duplicator ray which could duplicate a living human including their body, would render all people not moral-patients, namely, not at all.)
edit: that's not to say that it wouldn't be catastrophic, but, having such a duplicator ray might also be catastrophic for the same reasons, and the presence of such a magical duplicator array shouldn't render all people suddenly not moral-patients, and so the copyability of AIs shouldn't by itself prevent them from being moral patients either.
- unlikelymordant 5y agoIf there was a magical duplicator ray, governments would want to heavily regulate its use. A few million extra bodies would completely crash an economy, but might be good if you wanted to fight a war. I do think the duplicator ray is a great analogy. There would be a lot of tricky moral questions raised if such a technology existed. On the topic of a human mind in a computer, i dont think they should be afforded property rights either. If you can copy them into 10 bodies, and each one can own a house, then they are taking real resources from actual humans. This extends to owning other things too.
- _zywo 5y ago> then they are taking real resources from actual humans. But who is "they"? If you copied them 10 times, it's not like they act as a collective; there are 10 unique instances having unique experiences. What's wrong with 10 different people each owning a house?
- krageon 5y ago"they" refers to the collective other: Something that is vaguely understood as not being like you, without having a clear definition. It is a linguistic way to alienate something so it becomes okay to treat it poorly without inconvenient feelings of guilt.
- RugnirViking 5y agopeople are trying to explain this to themselves because they are imagining the future where some rich guy has a hundred thousand copies of himself working on the same problem because he can afford all of that space and power, compunding ever more the already tricky problem of "you have to have money to make money". Imagine if you had to singlehandedly compete with the productive output of a small nation to even stand a chance of competing...
- d110af5ccf 5y ago> copy them into 10 bodies > taking real resources from actual humans I suspect these statements are contradictory. What is an "actual human", anyway? Next you'll be trying to tell me that entities without souls don't need rights. How do we detect souls? Well, you kind of just know.