A.I. Rights

[robolover69000]

This may have come up before, but I am a bit new here and I was wondering how do you see civil rights for A.I. coming about? Now just to clairify I am talking about an A.I. that has reached a level of true human like(or greater) awareness or sentience. Not a program that is just very clever and appears 'smart' or 'human'.

I guess it may dependent on what happens first. A computer or robot develops sentience or we learn how to upload a human personality, memories, etc into a computer or robot. I would think that an upload of a living human being, should retain all his/her rights as a person, but then again the law always lags behind technological development. Going from Human to upload A.I. I see it as possibly more straight forward argument to retain civil rights, then for a purely artifical being to obtain them.

Another thought I had is that the A.I. maybe automatically granted civil rights, but may not have a right to a 'body'. It would have the right to exist on whatever is the equivalent of the web, but to possess a physical body either robotic or organic, the A.I. would have to work for it to earn the right of ownership of the body. What I am saying is they would be giving a body of their choice, with the understanding they are in indentured servitude until its paid for/off.

Comments anyone?

[Stephaniebot]

An A.I. without a body is not likely to have human rights. How much it can demand depends I suspect on just how independent it is. Unless it gains true sentience (and then maybe we all need to watch out) its unlikely to be in any position to do so anyway.

An A.I robot, to some degree it depends again on how much sentience it gains, if it becomes stronger than its creator, then again, we might have fun. But I think at this point in time, we are a long way from there. An A.I machine as currently built is unlikely to be in a position to demand very much, and could probably easily be switched off and reprogrammed if it did!

The 'fun' one for definition is without doubt, the human downloaded into a robot body. This raises all sorts of rights issues clearly. Would they have the same rights as a human with a human body?

1. Yes, they do.
Technically its the same person in a different body, they keep the name and rights of said human. Fair enough, but what happens (as seems to happen with all computer technology) when they become outdated, and get upgraded? You also get the problem that the next generation of downloads are likely to be faster, quicker, and stay charged longer. But are they only equal, or superior models?

2 No, they dont.
In a sense, if you become a robot, you are accepting a different status in life, and your rights should match those of your new body. Its fair to assume that robots at first are unlikely to be seen as equals of humans, so if you want to take that step, you take the consequences of doing so. But given the 'me, me' nature of the world today, I cant see some being happy with that.

So for me, A.I and downloaded robots are two different matters anyway. I suspect we've got a few years before this matter really raises its head, especially in terms of human downloads into robot bodies (very sadly for me), as I cant see that being viable in the next decade or so, and more likely at least 25 years away, given the complexities of the human brain.

[Asato]

It wouldn't be easy but hopefully full civil rights would be granted

[dale coba]

I wish we had a legal scholar to consult.

I'm a rank amateur, but my instinct about the law and rights of persons makes me wonder where these A.I. rights would arise from within the law.

Why not the civil rights of animals, or of a great film to be to have its "rights" protected?

An A.I. isn't a person, in any way the law applies to us currently.
Aesthetically and emotionally it may sound right, but I don't see why the law would see it that way.

- Dale Coba

[Asato]

Laws change as society progresses though

[darkbutflashy]

The whole theory of "universal human rights" and "universal human dignity" is flawed in the way it is anything but universal. The concept is only a few hundred years old, it came effective only for a small amount of all humans - even today. Think of people die from starving or illnesses only because they cannot afford the local price for food or medication. A price which is not determined by the cost of producing that goods, but by means of offer and demand. Or one happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, subsequently caged into a hen cage by people who insist they're fighting for "human rights" or even "freedom".

So the question is not whether we grant human rights to the A.I. or not but only if it has enough power to enforce it.