AI should have no rights at all. equivocating between programs and beings is not empathetic, it just shows profound contempt for actual beings. imo the main rea

AI should have no rights at all. equivocating between programs and beings is not empathetic, it just shows profound contempt for actual beings. imo the main reason some people fear AI is they see their own spiritual void reflected by it. these arguments are not really about AI. the whole discourse of rights is freighted with a presumption about who gets to define and enforce those rights. tl;dr, shocker, it's the people advocating to manage rights on someone's behalf. human dignity was a precursor movement to human rights that is still a going concern in some catholic circles and it is much a more sincere and humane principle. if AI-dignity sounds strange, AI-rights should seem more clearly absurd, and consider who benefits from us believing absurd things. the solution is likely a committee of global experts whose advice is taken and implemented by authorites whose job it is to do what the science tells them. the experts won't hold risk because they're providing knowledge. some eggs may need cracking to make the omlette, but those results are just statistical. it wasn't the committee it was the forces of history, surely. it's important because the change implied by the tech is being hyperbolized as another excuse to say 'this changes everything' and it's time to renege on our social contracts and the equillibrium of our cultures and just put us in charge. it's their solution to everything. don't get taken in by this stuff. AI-safety is just managerialistic anxiety.