Submitted by BernardJOrtcutt t3_xuk9z9 in philosophy
derGoleb t1_ir4yv0a wrote
I'm currently writing an essay on the way we treat AI and if it's supposed to have rights. While writing I came to a point, where my anthropological research became more and more focused on the nature of AI itself, rather than the comparison to humans. But because of Anthropology being the science of the nature of humans, I am tempted to call it Xenoanthropology, a branch of science, I literally just know from movies. But because of the name itself being a combination of "xeno" (greek for foreign) with anthropology, I am unsure if the name fits. What do you think of the idea?
DirtyOldPanties t1_ir6kkfp wrote
> I'm currently writing an essay on the way we treat AI and if it's supposed to have rights.
Before even considering AI; do humans have rights? What are rights and how do we know? What rights do people have and who has them? Do you think you can square something controversial like the debate over abortion where both sides claims to support rights?
I'd think if you even attempted to answer "do AI have rights?" you'd already have answers for these questions.
olavettedepressivo t1_irmdnlw wrote
I'm not sure if it's still worth to answer your question, since you may have finished the essay, but in any case, for the discussion itself, well, AI probably will have rights.
I think there are 3 points of comparison that makes the topic clearer.
1st: the rights of animals.
There are a bunch of rules that are basically about preservation of life. Some places may go further, some may not, but still this is the point in consideration. In my country if someone poisons or runs over an animal, if it is discovered, you have to at least pay something (and in running over, you get bad points in your driving license).
2nd: the rights of the owner, also just like pets.
One thing is to own something in nature; another one is on society. Owning on society means you need to have rights to guarantee that if it is taken from your, or if there's such a risk, you have the possibility to get back or avoid the problem. So rights to avoid breaking, stealing and so on.
3rd: patents and copywrights.
Specially if you're considering only the software, not the robot itself, this is pretty much the thing. As a software, it's like any other. So there will have the rights of protecting from being hacked, copied, modified without your permission and so on. We don't have a right about modifying the DNA of your pet, because it makes no sense more than "you have to steal the cat first", and that's illegal. But you can modify the "DNA of the software" without touching it directly. So there certainly will have eventually laws for this type of protection.
I hope it helps.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments