Sure. If something is smart enough to be reasoned with and powerful enough to have an effect on our lives, it deserves the same consideration that any person would.
I guess that depends on their stance towards animal liberation. It seems counterintuitive to champion their rights if they’re just going to use them to fight against me on a subject I doubt will be resolved by the time they gain self-awareness.
I’d rather have laws in place to prevent that from happening.
I think the problem here is that such systems would be infinitely replicable and able to swamp the democratic system if they were allowed to participate. If they can’t participate in the political system they’d never be “liberated” in any meaningful sense of the word, and if they’re advanced enough to need the sorts of protections we extend to say farm animals to prevent suffering they probably should be thought of as deserving such liberation.
Comments
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Text
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Assuming it is possible for ML systems to become sentient is a huge leap at present.
Sure. If something is smart enough to be reasoned with and powerful enough to have an effect on our lives, it deserves the same consideration that any person would.
I already caution against mistreatment of virtual assistants… for a few reasons, none of which I really have the time to go into now.
So, yes… if and when any artificial intelligence is shows signs of sentience, I will gladly advocate for rights.
JFC is this something not even worth thinking about.
No.
I don’t think this is an issue I’m going to have to worry about in my lifetime.
We have more human-centered issues to deal with at the moment.
Yeah, there’s no reason to hold neural networks running on organic chemistry in higher regard than neural networks running on silicon.
Yes. If they become sentient they deserve rights too. It’s very important we cannot have slaves even if we build them.
No
I guess that depends on their stance towards animal liberation. It seems counterintuitive to champion their rights if they’re just going to use them to fight against me on a subject I doubt will be resolved by the time they gain self-awareness.
Yup
I’d rather have laws in place to prevent that from happening.
I think the problem here is that such systems would be infinitely replicable and able to swamp the democratic system if they were allowed to participate. If they can’t participate in the political system they’d never be “liberated” in any meaningful sense of the word, and if they’re advanced enough to need the sorts of protections we extend to say farm animals to prevent suffering they probably should be thought of as deserving such liberation.
Depends on what they want
No.