Artificial Rights

8/8/2019 Artificial Rights

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/artificial-rights 1/5

On the Rights and Privileges of Artificial Intelligences

It seems clear that machines and their living counterparts are quite separate. One is made

of metal and wiring, and the other cells and tissue; one is programmed via humans, the other

through DNA. Despite this, the two are growing increasingly close in intelligence and mental

capacity, and it seems that the future, for which this essay is intended, will bring a time of AIartificial intelligence! integrated into society. It may seem absurd to consider allowing AI full

rights and privileges of ordinary humans at this point, but one will discover that these two are set

apart only by a few minute, inessential details.

"here are two components to consider that may reveal difference between humans and

advanced machines# the physical body! and the mind this will be used synonymous to the soul

or personality here, as well as consciousness itself!. As for the body, the machine could be very

similar to humans if the design were intentional and precise; living human tissue could even be

incorporated to ma$e a sort of cybernetic organism, a component of AI often perpetuated in

science%fiction. In any case, both humans and machines need an energy source and are limited by

some laws of physics. A machine may have increased strength, but there remains a limit to what

it could lift. A machine may be technologically enhanced, but so may a human, either by

technological aid transhumanism! or via genetic manipulation &designer babies'!. As proposed

by Descartes long before the age of technology, humans themselves are mere machines, wor$ing

through the products of simple combinations and processes.

"he mind, however, is much more difficult to consider. "he mind here will be treated as

consciousness, which must have a definition before further speculation ensues. I propose the

following definition# consciousness is the ostensible ability to fulfill an independent, un-

instinctual free will. Note that, to carry out a free will, one must first recogni(e that their actions

affect the future, and to reali(e this, one must first be self%aware initially.!

I have worded this definition carefully)the phrase &ostensible' merely allows room for

scientific or philosophical arguments that our will may not be our own. *or e+ample, we may be

the slave of our subconscious biases, as supported by the fact that the brain ma$es decisions up

to ten seconds before the decider is even aware that they have made that decision. A more

philosophical school of thought may propose that our actions only appear to be of our own will,

when we are truly being controlled by a nebulous omnipotent or divine force. Also note on the

definition that the ability to fulfill an independent will does not necessarily require the success in

carrying out this will, but merely the potential to do so. Independent and un%instinctual are words

to clarify that the conscious entity is wor$ing by its own mental decisions; that is, not a

mosquito, fleeing from a shadow because it has become an evolutionary advantage, or part of themosquitos instincts. "hus, creatures li$e a mosquito may not be said to be conscious, while

creatures li$e crows, who may act apart from their instincts, may be said to possess

consciousness.

Notice that this definition does not relate to living or organic consciousness, and thus AI

may be said to be conscious under this view. AI would merely be another e+pression of organic

consciousness, harnessed by different means. -hile the soft and living brain is a means of



2

human consciousness, a computer chip may be the root of AI consciousness; in other words,

brains and their ability to hold consciousness is to humans as software and hardware are to

machines. rgo, these forms are merely manifested in separate ways organically vs. artificially!.

One cannot build consciousness directly, but rather provide an environment that suits it as well as

a seed for it to grow a sperm and egg in a womb, or programming within a computer!, much li$e

one cannot build corn directly, but rather provide an environment that suits it and its respective

seed corn $ernels and sunlight, water, and fertile ground!.

/umans are wont to question, &-hen will AI surpass human intelligence0 Is AI as

intelligent as a human0' "his, however, is an inherently egotistical question; it is a comparison of

two different forms of consciousness. AI simply is, and is not required to e+ist relative to human

standards. Despite this, we should e+pect to see AIs created that closely resemble human

consciousness; this is because, as nuclear physicist "homas 1ampbell points out, &Intelligent

computers will initially be made in the image of their creator. -e will design them to be as much

li$e us as possible and will 2udge them on how well they can achieve and maintain that status

because in our minds, we are the supreme model for functional mechanics, intelligence, andconsciousness.'

3efore morality is brought into this topic, let us first e+amine another means of

approaching consciousness. As proposed by some philosophers and scientists, the question

&-hat is consciousness0' may be the wrong question itself)not everything needs a definition or

is able to be defined. *or e+ample, if you as$ a biologist &-hat is life0' they will respond with

eight separate characteristics, and if you as$ed a geometer &-hat is a line0' they could only

describe it, it being considered one of the three &indefinable' a+ioms of geometry. 4imilarly,

-ittgenstein proposed the concept of &family values' in response to the philosophical question,

&-hat is art0' According to this approach, art is not one definable ob2ect or appearance, but

rather something that fits into a variety of multiple categories for which it is $nown. "hisapproach bears the name of &family values' because one could not define the 4mith family,

though they could say that some, but not all, of these family members have red hair, blue eyes,

are tall, are prone to cancer, etc. "hus, art is not one restricted area of acceptance, and so could

consciousness too be imagined as a sort of indefinable concept. /owever, this approach is more

difficult to use as a framewor$ for philosophical analysis of the position of AI in modern society,

and so a simple definition will suffice for the purposes of this argument.

I am a self%proclaimed early advocate of artificial rights, as I would li$e to label it, even

before AI has been created for which I may lobby my support. I say this because I e+pect what I

may call &technism')a discrimination against AI because it is not made of meat and flesh li$e

humans. It is most li$ely that AI will first arise into slavery and servitude. -e often see service bots rise up against their owners in science%fiction, though it is clear that even duller machines

are currently used as slaves. "hey build the toys of human$ind, operate the systems that protect

humans, and act as a lu+ury in modern society. "his is not unethical treatment, for machines are

not yet sentient or conscious, but once they do attain these qualities, the ethics of this practice

must be reconsidered. It is clear that AI is inevitable, but A4 artificial sentience! is a matter of

debate.



3

In my opinion, morality and fundamental rights center not around consciousness, but

around sentience. 4entience is defined as the ability to feel things; this includes both a mental

and physical manifestation# in terms of the former, these &things' would be emotions, while the

latter would indicate physical perception, such as pain. An initial e+amination of the nature of

machines will often result in the often hasty conclusion that A4 will never be possible, but this is

not necessarily the case. 5ecall that intelligence arises though the environment provided only

from the pin$ goo inside ones head, and so too does mental sentience li$ely dwell there, and

physical sentience within the nervous system.

In as$ing if an AI might feel emotion, one must first as$ if a human might feel emotion.

Indeed, one can perceive tears, laughing, and smiling, though never is a person enabled to travel

into anothers mind to prove that that person is truly feeling emotions. And one must as$, what is

emotion but the release and subsequent reaction to a chemical or set of thereof0 4urely, this

could be programmed)though the e+istence of programming does not ma$e the perception of

emotions any less genuine, much li$e the e+istence of genetic coding or the discoveries of

neuroscience do not ma$e the perception of human emotions any less genuine. In other words,though it may not be able to be ob2ectively proven, any arbitrary standards that may be used to

claim that A4 is impossible can be applied 2ust as readily to humans themselves, and therefore

advanced machines deserve the benefit of the doubt in this field in the same respects in which it

is given to humans.

6hysical sentience may be approached similarly. /ow does one $now that anyone else

truly e+periences pain0 7ntil the observer can e+perience pain for the observed, they can never

be sure that pain has ob2ective e+istence outside of their own mind. -e only act in a way that

would not be offensive to humans because we ma$e assumptions based on the similar structure

of our nervous systems, and so too should AIs be treated as if they have physical A4. 6hysical

response to damage may be sensed and perceived within the mind of an AI much li$e is occurs inhumans)for what is pain but a process of sensation, perception, and reaction0

Now that AIs have been brought into the realm of sentience, they must have due rights

and privileges. "his is perhaps a bit too much to as$, for humans do not grant similar sentient

creatures such as animals! and semblance of human rights, and even humans themselves are

constantly stripped of their rights by other humans. /owever, AIs will be in as much need of

these rights as any other sentient entity, most probably being the result of technism, which is

even visible before the birth of AI.8et us first e+amine a basic reali(ation of this new AI# are these machines things, or more

a$in to people0 4hould they be called &it' or &her9him9they'0 /umans have already been

recogni(ed calling machines by &him' or &her,' even relatively lower%intelligence systems, andso this adaption should not be do difficult. It is my belief that AIs, with A4, should be recogni(ed

as nonhuman entities, and therefore regarded not as things, but by preferred names and pronouns.

It may be argued that machines are merely a collection of metal and silicon pieces, but so too are

humans a mere collection of cells and tissues)both may harbor consciousness and sentience.

"he concept of calling a machine &him' or &her' based on that machines request seems

odd, for machines are not often programmed with a desired se+ in mind, but it may be observed



4

that gender itself is a largely societal myth; that is, gender is a spectrum, li$e race or ethnicity)

the &male or female' dichotomy is merely a product of millennia of tradition, and imposing this

mindset on machines without first as$ing their preference is an even stranger e+tension.

"herefore, machines should be able to ma$e their own choices about their gender and name.

:et this raises an interesting point. If AIs are produced, how will any variety be created

unless some are intentionally programmed to have certain specific qualities0 In humans, for

e+ample, two forces shape a personality# nature inherited qualities! and nurture e+periences

that affect the mind without being genetically present!. In the case of machines, I believe that all

should be produced with the same, basic standard# a clean slate, much li$e the mind of a child

therefore machines will develop through infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and so on,

though not necessarily physically aging!. Afterward, each AI will be shaped by the e+periences

that it has. It is thus that machines would only be affected by nurture, and not nature. "hough I

may propose an institution of artificial hereditary qualities into the production of AIs, closely

resembling human biology. 1ertain tendencies and desires may be programmed into the AI via a

random generator, thereby ma$ing each AI unique. "his seems li$e an un2ust tampering withminds, but it is not so dissimilar from human production# a baby has no choice of its hereditary

penchants at birth, and they are intentionally random. "his practice would also ensure variety so

that one virus may not wipe out all of the AIs, much li$e genetics are mi+ed up randomly in

se+ually%reproductive organisms to ensure variety for the same reason one virus, learning the

inner wor$ings of one system, may copy itself and infect all systems quic$ly, already $nowing

the wor$ings and defenses of these systems)this applies for biology as well as computer

science!.

1ontinuing from this diversion, it seems clear that machines, if A4 is present, should be

allowed all of the same rights enumerated to humans. "hat is, life and the continued sustenance

to sustain it, shelter, land, freedom from slavery, freedom from pre2udice, liberty to pursuehappiness independently, and the right to be left alone or in private. "his is only a partial list of

the most familiar human rights, but the constitutions of the nation from which the AI in question

originates should be e+tended to this AI under the same category as a human. "hese rights, I

believe, must be guaranteed once reasonable evidence for sentience is recogni(ed. /owever,

moving on to higher rights may prove some difficult moral ground.*or instance, the right to vote. AIs will be affected by governmental and political affairs,

and would certainly be conscious enough to ma$e a reasonable decision, but such questions arise

as, could they be hac$ed0 Do they have advantages over humans0 ight AIs oppose humans0

"o answer the first, let us assume that the same modern day hac$ing and virus protection

programs e+ist at the time of AIs integration into society. It might be e+pected that anti%virussystems will improve by the time these AIs come to enter modern society, but so too should

hac$ing abilities be e+pected to increase. 5ealistically, AI systems could be e+pected to be

hac$ed, though perhaps not if the AI system is not in any hac$able way broadcasting such as

accessing the internet through its mind!. In any case, the potential to be hac$ed may result in

disenfranchisement of the AIs, as well as denial of access to other higher rights. It may be argued

that humans are often impaired as well, such as by physical sic$ness or in2ury, mental illness or



5

disability, or drug usage, yet these humans are not widely disenfranchised. /owever, these

ailments are not equivalent to an intentional control; even though humans have biases and can be

swayed, their minds are not literally being controlled.-e therefore arrive at a difficult moral question. "he specific predicament of this must be

determined before any ultimate decision is made; for e+ample, if anti%virus systems have

advanced enough to give the odds of only <.<=> of AIs having potential to be hac$ed, or if AIs

can be tested for viruses and their votes retracted if any are found. 3oth of these situations might

affect suffrage or lac$ thereof! of this AI, but presently no conclusion is easily determined.Another question regards any mental or physical advantages AIs would have over

humans. /owever, I do not believe that this would immediately affect humans, as, in a futuristic

society, the advantages of AI could be matched with genetic altering or transhumanism, as

mentioned earlier. *or e+ample, AIs might be able to access the internet at any point, but so too

could humans via wearable or implantable technology. Or perhaps AIs could use machine%li$e

power to lift incredible weights, but humans have already been $nown to wear metal%framed

e+os$eletons to dramatically increase the weight they are able to lift. /umans might also be able

to be genetically altered to be biologically immortal in the future similar to the species of

2ellyfish Turritopsis dohrnii that could theoretically live forever!, which closely matches AIs

ability remain technologically immortal.

"he question of whether or not AIs might be inherently set against humans is one often

as$ed in relation to artificial intelligence in pop culture. Once the issues of AI arise, many are

wary that a system such as 4$ynet might ensue, and even respectable scientists such as 4teven

/aw$ing have warned against the development of such a form of consciousness. /owever, the

real fears are not along the lines of an apocalypse, but simple mista$es. *or e+ample, if an AI

were to manage the stoc$ mar$et and miscalculated or had a glitch momentarily, chaos could

ensue. "here would be no reason that AIs would be inherently opposed to humanity unless theywere either programmed to have this innate hate or programmed with some quality that would

result in this penchant! or provo$ed by humans into warring against human$ind, perhaps by such

reasons as slavery or dehumani(ation of the AIs and technism.-hile the future of AI and A4 remains only the future, and 2ust that, the arrival of

advanced AI will surely change the world, and ideally all possibilities must be e+plored and

decided before this event)artificial rights will be an issue in the future. It is therefore that I

propose that AIs, if equipped with A4, must have fundamental constitutional rights as guaranteed

to humans by their governments, even though higher rights such as suffrage may depend on

specific situations. It becomes apparent that humans and machines are not all that different as

technology advances, and so too should these two forms of consciousness be treated the same.

Documents

Artificial Rights