3 ms·
I agree with the other top-level comment next to yours (at the time of writing): when we're willing to enforce consequences for them in the same way we would fo
by saghm 4mo ago
I agree with the other top-level comment next to yours (at the time of writing): when we're willing to enforce consequences for them in the same way we would for people. If I violate laws, I can get put in jail, and then I (most likely) can't use any computers until I get out. To consider an AI a person, it needs to have legal liability in the same way a fleshy person does.
- shh_labs 4mo agoBeing a legal person is not a logical prerequisite for being named as an inventor on that argument alone, because there's not a legal liability that stems from being named as an inventor. (That's not to say AI should or should not be capable of being named as an inventor).
- saghm 4mo agoI'm aware. Being named as an inventor is a benefit we sometimes give to people, and the point the other comment was making (as I understood it) is that AI shouldn't be able to only take the good parts of being a person and skip over the potential downsides.