2 ms·
The concept is based on at least 2 false premises. I am not aware of a social contract that says we must grant conscious beings rights. Not aware of a shared,
by ozozozd 16d ago
The concept is based on at least 2 false premises.
I am not aware of a social contract that says we must grant conscious beings rights.
Not aware of a shared, concrete definition of consciousness either, which means no way of deciding whether AI is conscious.
Close to half of us don’t even feel compelled to grant rights to humans for just being humans.
We grant rights to animals, because we love/like them. We enjoy experiencing them. We find them pretty etc. There is a ton of undisputable warm fuzzy.
Humans have rights because they won’t stop being a pain in the back about it. Those that stop lose their rights.
Plain as day for me. Not sure what I am missing or whether I am just a simpleton.
- billynomates 16d agoWe grant rights to some animals. Most domesticated animals have very few rights and suffer fates you wouldn't wish upon your worst enemy. Having rights should not be based upon being conscious/not conscious, but on the ability to suffer. AIs cannot suffer, as far as I'm aware.
- bagacrap 14d ago> I am not aware of a social contract that says we must grant conscious beings rights. No, but there are a lot of people who won't shut up about who/what they think should be granted rights (see: vegans). Seems we're already on the precipice of militant PETM activism.