Turn on thread page Beta

Should sufficiently-advanced AI be granted human rights? watch

    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    PS Reviewer
    If so, should they be given the same extent of rights as humans, if they reach a similar level of awareness and intelligence?

    If not, what rights should they be given, if any?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    If so, should they be given the same extent of rights as humans, if they reach a similar level of awareness and intelligence?

    If not, what rights should they be given, if any?
    hey shadowdweller :hi:
    imo apes such as chimpanzees, oranguatangs and gorrilas should be granted human rights before AI or at least a version of it (like primate rights or something). If AI did have rights maybe it would be different rights to people, like robot rights :dontknow:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    If so, should they be given the same extent of rights as humans, if they reach a similar level of awareness and intelligence?

    If not, what rights should they be given, if any?
    The question would be how you measure awareness and intelligence, as there's no reason to suppose that an AI would have the same ways of thinking as a human.

    However, if an AI is demonstrated to have the same mental capacity as a human, then of course they should have some rights. Perhaps not exactly the same, because an AI and a human will always have different needs and requirements, but something like the right to life should definitely be considered a universal for any intelligent being.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think human rights should expand further than humans anyway. I think we should rethink our attitude to the rights of all living things.

    As for AI, yes. When an AI becomes autonomous and self-preserving, that is where the line will start to blur.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoolCavy)
    hey shadowdweller :hi:
    imo apes such as chimpanzees, oranguatangs and gorrilas should be granted human rights before AI or at least a version of it (like primate rights or something). If AI did have rights maybe it would be different rights to people, like robot rights :dontknow:
    Agreed, the other apes have such a strong level of self-awareness and intelligence it wouldn't make much sense to give AI's (which haven't yet been confirmed to have their own evolving consciousness) human rights over animals that clearly do.

    Whether the rights we give them are exactly the same us ours is a different matter since they aren't completely the same as us but neither are all humans. :bunny:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely, yes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    humans rights for humans only
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not. Human rights exist to protect the vulnerable in our society, and to provide a decent basis for our interactions with each other. Animal rights exist primarily to protect domestic animals from unnecessary cruelty because they form part of our society, and allowing people to be cruel reflects badly on society. "Lower" animals don't have rights but we still consider it cruel or distasteful to pull wings off flies or so on.

    The idea that unplugging or damaging a machine could be cruel is absurd. Nobody thinks that it is cruel to leave a laptop unplugged to slowly run out of power, or to throw an old computer away. If / when artificial intelligence becomes widespread, such machines will still be just machines. It will not suddenly become cruel to leave a laptop unplugged then. The point of developing AI is so that it should be helpful and subordinate in power to humans. If we envisage AI being equal in rights, then obviously we also wish for it to become dominant on Earth by virtue of it's predictably higher intelligence. The development of AI is not intended to be a collective suicide plan.
    Would an AI machine decide to assign human rights to another AI machine?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Whilst they are able to think and act like a human, in a body that looks human. They really aren't human.

    Essentially, they are not alive. They are essentially human shaped super computers. It's not life. So I'm not sure if they can have the right to life for example.
    Right now, I don't think I could empathise with what I just see as a super advanced computer compared.
    So short answer is no.

    Basically what the guy above me said.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's interesting if you look at what it is that defines life and what it is that gives us human rights. A lot of people do look to consciousness as the definition of being a human being who is alive - but this would necessitate babies who don't have full awareness of their surroundings, no long term memory etc. as having more rights than a robot who had the same level of consciousness as an adult human. If you look at Marvin the Paranoid Android in Hitchhiker's Guide, it seems that at least in some aspects of the word, he has more claim to 'human' rights than a newborn or a 30 week foetus who is granted protection under abortion laws (I still think rightfully here, I just think that Marvin here has a claim as well).

    To throw another spanner in the mix (and because pop culture in philosophical debates on TSR seems to be my thing) there was a case on the TV show Dark Matter where someone had created an 'artificial' human constructed out of human body parts and maintained by nanites. Would you ascribe human rights to this character?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    To be fair, I can think of quite a few humans who don't even deserve human rights.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    If so, should they be given the same extent of rights as humans, if they reach a similar level of awareness and intelligence?

    If not, what rights should they be given, if any?
    I'm still firmly in the camp that a true Strong AI is not a feasible objective.

    However the things we create if we get close to that point, will still not be alive. Even, what kind of a heartless ******* would you have to be to program 'feelings' of being oppressed into your AI?

    Problem is, if it does reach the point of self-conscious, humanoid AI, they'll be the ones deciding whether WE get human rights :eek3:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    If so, should they be given the same extent of rights as humans, if they reach a similar level of awareness and intelligence?

    If not, what rights should they be given, if any?
    Yes, I fully support equal rights for AI.

    (and I probably do mean that, not just saying it in case in 50 years time an AI searches Google to target those who say no)
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    I've kind of shot the debate in the foot by wording the question like it is. By definition, if a machine were sufficiently advanced to merit human rights, then it merits those human rights.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoolCavy)
    hey shadowdweller :hi:
    imo apes such as chimpanzees, oranguatangs and gorrilas should be granted human rights before AI or at least a version of it (like primate rights or something). If AI did have rights maybe it would be different rights to people, like robot rights :dontknow:
    That's a good point - we still haven't quite got it right with other living / thinking things yet have we :ashamed:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Certainly not. Imagine what happens when one of these machines runs amok, damaging property and injuring people. If it had rights it couldn't be properly dealt with.

    I can see the headlines already: European court backs robot turned off without trial

    The very concept of machines and animals having human rights is preposterous.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I've kind of shot the debate in the foot by wording the question like it is. By definition, if a machine were sufficiently advanced to merit human rights, then it merits those human rights.
    Don't be silly. A machine is a machine, no matter how advanced.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Certainly not. Imagine what happens when one of these machines runs amok, damaging property and injuring people. If it had rights it couldn't be properly dealt with.

    I can see the headlines already: European court backs robot turned off without trial

    The very concept of machines and animals having human rights is preposterous.
    It's my gut feeling that if you can't tell a given AI apart from a human being pretending to be an AI, then you should give it the benefit of the doubt and afford them human rights.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T.L)
    The idea that unplugging or damaging a machine could be cruel is absurd. Nobody thinks that it is cruel to leave a laptop unplugged to slowly run out of power, or to throw an old computer away. If / when artificial intelligence becomes widespread, such machines will still be just machines. It will not suddenly become cruel to leave a laptop unplugged then. The point of developing AI is so that it should be helpful and subordinate in power to humans. If we envisage AI being equal in rights, then obviously we also wish for it to become dominant on Earth by virtue of it's predictably higher intelligence. The development of AI is not intended to be a collective suicide plan.
    Would an AI machine decide to assign human rights to another AI machine?
    Funnily enough STar Trek covered this subject in regards to Data and his rights. And they determined he was self aware and that he did indeed have rights and was not just a mere machine.

    A laptop is not a sentient free thinking device though. The topic is about actual AI and whatever form it may take.


    (Original post by FatherTime)
    Whilst they are able to think and act like a human, in a body that looks human. They really aren't human.

    Essentially, they are not alive. They are essentially human shaped super computers. It's not life. So I'm not sure if they can have the right to life for example.
    Right now, I don't think I could empathise with what I just see as a super advanced computer compared.
    So short answer is no.

    Basically what the guy above me said.
    The fully realised that you describe is the same as you, only made up of metal and plastic rather than flesh and blood.

    "i think therefore i am"

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Don't be silly. A machine is a machine, no matter how advanced.
    And so are you. Every aspect of your physiology is a machine just made up of a different set of materials.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    It's my gut feeling that if you can't tell a given AI apart from a human being pretending to be an AI, then you should give it the benefit of the doubt and afford them human rights.
    I think the fact that you can turn off a machine, and cut a chunk off it without drawing blood might be sufficient clues as to its lack of life. If they aren't enough then give it a DNA test; it won't have any.

    Some people watch too much science fiction.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 30, 2015

1,344

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.