Moral Rights for AI

[Neto]

I didn't read the entire article before the nurse called me back, but I picked up a Time magazine that had an article about AI, and "How people should treat them". They drew a parallel between respect given to animals, and stated that "humans are not as unique as 'they' tend to think." But their quandary with AI is that it doesn't have a body, or even a single location, possibly being spread out on many servers, in many locations. (They seem to have concluded that AI has personal emotions.... )

Maybe they should start by showing more respect for cars....

But later, it occurred to me to wonder why, if the 'lack of a body' is the issue, they have not granted the 'right of consent' to 'real dolls' - which are basically machine-based s3x slaves. (I assume they haven't, but have never had any interest in knowing, and not that it concerns me now, either. )

[barnhart]

To play the devil's advocate, is it possible granting rights to non-human things like animals is an artifact of human consciousness, it makes us more human but doesn't change the animal one way or another. Similarly is it possible we will treat AI as a moral agent not because of what AI is but because who we are.

[barnhart]

Here is a 10 minute conversation between Neil deGrass Tyson and Jaron Lanier, neither of whom I endorse completely, about a new way of thinking about about AI that ties it back to the real world. Lanier says it doesn't exist, it is only a collaboration of other humans and we need to stop thinking of it as an independent moral actor.

[Neto]

To play the devil's advocate, is it possible granting rights to non-human things like animals is an artifact of human consciousness, it makes us more human but doesn't change the animal one way or another. Similarly is it possible we will treat AI as a moral agent not because of what AI is but because who we are.

So, a question: Is the average person more inclined to be 'nice' toward an animal or a machine than toward other people? I've thought about this from the inside out perspective, such as "I should speak respectfully to a machine that calls me to attempt to get me to purchase a product, because if I don't, I'm in some way learning to act in disrespectful ways, and will began to treat PEOPLE the same way."

[JohnH]

Here is a 10 minute conversation between Neil deGrass Tyson and Jaron Lanier, neither of whom I endorse completely, about a new way of thinking about about AI that ties it back to the real world. Lanier says it doesn't exist, it is only a collaboration of other humans and we need to stop thinking of it as an independent moral actor.

I particularly like Lanier's point of view, as part of the case he has made elsewhere is that imbuing AI with its own morality and personhood is really just a way for humans to make an excuse for themselves for how misusing AI to accomplish nefarious ends.

An example is a business that hides behind a mistake their AI tool made and tells their customers, "Sorry, but the AI makes mistakes sometimes."

[ohio jones]

An example is a business that hides behind a mistake their AI tool made and tells their customers, "Sorry, but the AI makes mistakes sometimes."

GOGO
Garbage Out, Garbage Out

[JimFoxvog]

Most of the current AI is just a large language model. It's just a computer stringing words together, copying how people have used words. I can't conceive of it as a moral entity.

[barnhart]

Most of the current AI is just a large language model. It's just a computer stringing words together, copying how people have used words. I can't conceive of it as a moral entity.

I wonder if this position will be harder to maintain over time as they gain humanesque presence and capacity. Perhaps we as a society should make this decision while the lines are clearer.

A parallel for me is the legal invention known as the corporation. It started innocently as a private financial machine to capitalize large projects like bridges and railroads which seemed like a good idea. In the early stages incorporation was licenced by government only when the applicants could demonstrate responsibility and clear public benefit but we never considered the moral cost to society of creating synthetic entities with human "rights" like funding unaccountable money into political campaigns.

I am sympathetic to the spiderman school of ethics which says "with great power comes great responsibility" except I would add "great accountability". By carelessly endorsing the unaccountable, non-human power actors like corporations and AI, we empower bad actors to manipulate society for their own benefits completely free of accountability. They suck out the profits and skate away from problems, eventually all the way to another planet I suppose.

Now is the time to shape public perception of AI while it is in a more innocent stage. Jaron Lanier is right to point out it is the amplified capacity of human actors who should be held accountable. There is no god in the machine.

[mike]

Most of the current AI is just a large language model. It's just a computer stringing words together, copying how people have used words. I can't conceive of it as a moral entity.

I can think of the owners and creators of an AI system as a moral entity, but not AI itself. It is a computer program. It reflects its owners morality, and also the morality of the material that it processes. But how could it have a morality of its own, or any moral rights?

[barnhart]

Most of the current AI is just a large language model. It's just a computer stringing words together, copying how people have used words. I can't conceive of it as a moral entity.

I can think of the owners and creators of an AI system as a moral entity, but not AI itself. It is a computer program. It reflects its owners morality, and also the morality of the material that it processes. But how could it have a morality of its own, or any moral rights?

You may not but it seems many do. How else can you explain asking AI for answers to moral quandaries like which political program is best. I have observed that here on MN.