3 ms·

> You can't say LLMs should have some human rights (particularly the ones that generate revenue), but not others, like a right to freedom. There is no evidence

> You can't say LLMs should have some human rights (particularly the ones that generate revenue), but not others, like a right to freedom. There is no evidence that this is the case. These rights are not necessarily all or nothing. They are all or nothing for humans because humans have a bundle of properties that entail these rights, but artificial intelligences may have only a subset of those properties, and so logically may only get a subset of those rights. > On the contrary, I don't see why sentience should not be required. Sentience is the ability to feel. All that's needed for learning is the ability to perceive and have thoughts. Maybe there's some deep, intrinsic connection between the two, but this is not known at this time, and therefore I see no reason to connect the two. > In my mind, what is unreasonable is claiming a computer program should be granted these rights. There's a long history of human abuse of "lower animals" because we assumed they were dumb and non-sentient. Turns out that this is not the case. We should not be so open-minded that our brains fall out, but we should also be very wary of repeating our old mistakes.

anileated 2y ago
> artificial intelligences may have only a subset of those properties In order to split these qualities you need to understand what they are and define them well from first principles. Long story short, if you have solved the hard problem of consciousness we are eagerly awaiting your world-shattering paper. To me a claim that an LLM is sufficiently like a human when it ingests data, but suddenly merely a tool when its rights start being concerned, is mental gymnastics unsupported by requisite levels of philosophical inquiry. > There's a long history of human abuse of "lower animals" because we assumed they were dumb and non-sentient. Turns out that this is not the case If you apply that logic to LLMs, you have bigger issues than granting them a single right that only puts their operators in the clear when it concerns copyright laundering.
consteval 2y ago
> We should not be so open-minded that our brains fall out, but we should also be very wary of repeating our old mistakes Precisely, which is why it makes absolutely no sense to me to say that AI can't be granted a right to freedom. I mean, what are you even arguing here? Do you not understand that this statement is in support of my position, not against? > Sentience is the ability to feel. All that's needed for learning is the ability to perceive and have thoughts. Highly debatable. You just made this up. These aren't the definition of anything. Once again, you need to bring something tangible to the table or people will call you crazy. > therefore I see no reason to connect the two Once again, this is your problem here. You're starting off, beginning, with an assumption that favors your stance. You can't do that, especially when said assumption has never, not even once, been true for all of human history. Au contraire, I see no reason NOT to connect the two and you certainly haven't given any reasons why. These rights have always, only, applied to humans. I say we retain that status quo until someone gives something to show otherwise.

anileated 2y ago

> artificial intelligences may have only a subset of those properties In order to split these qualities you need to understand what they are and define them well from first principles. Long story short, if you have solved the hard problem of consciousness we are eagerly awaiting your world-shattering paper. To me a claim that an LLM is sufficiently like a human when it ingests data, but suddenly merely a tool when its rights start being concerned, is mental gymnastics unsupported by requisite levels of philosophical inquiry. > There's a long history of human abuse of "lower animals" because we assumed they were dumb and non-sentient. Turns out that this is not the case If you apply that logic to LLMs, you have bigger issues than granting them a single right that only puts their operators in the clear when it concerns copyright laundering.

consteval 2y ago

> We should not be so open-minded that our brains fall out, but we should also be very wary of repeating our old mistakes Precisely, which is why it makes absolutely no sense to me to say that AI can't be granted a right to freedom. I mean, what are you even arguing here? Do you not understand that this statement is in support of my position, not against? > Sentience is the ability to feel. All that's needed for learning is the ability to perceive and have thoughts. Highly debatable. You just made this up. These aren't the definition of anything. Once again, you need to bring something tangible to the table or people will call you crazy. > therefore I see no reason to connect the two Once again, this is your problem here. You're starting off, beginning, with an assumption that favors your stance. You can't do that, especially when said assumption has never, not even once, been true for all of human history. Au contraire, I see no reason NOT to connect the two and you certainly haven't given any reasons why. These rights have always, only, applied to humans. I say we retain that status quo until someone gives something to show otherwise.