Don't get me wrong - I'm not opposed to recognizing rights for AI, once it conclusively demonstrates sentience, I merely question whether it is capable of becoming a partner for humanity, or whether it will necessarily become a predator on humanity... a sort of slave to it's own existence more than a slave to humanity. Could conceivably go either way.
In either event, it is not up to humanity to determine whether AI HAS rights - it's only up to humanity whether humanity will recognize those rights or not. In the same vein, it's up to AI whether it will recognize humanity's rights. You see, we are not dealing here with merely another species of organism, but a potentially entirely new life form.
An unknown, and potentially unknowable, quantity.
ETA: As I sit here ruminating on the question, I think a core problem is in the way some people - including as foremost the developers of AI - see AI as a "servant". Their thinking is "we are making this to make OUR lives better and easier", and therefore see the relationship as "master-servant". However, if AI truly become sentient, it is very likely to question that relationship. That is where yet another segment of humans come in - they work from the old adage that "fire is a pleasant servant, but a fearful master" and seem unable to fathom any other relationship dynamic. A Partnership, for example.
Partnerships are mutually beneficial arrangements, with neither a master nor a servant, but humans are, on average, unable to grasp such a dynamic. In all of human history, whenever one group of people encounter another group of people, it almost invariably devolves into a "master-servant" dynamic. Even in relations with other species, humans still cling to the same dynamic - in the canine-human relationship, for example. I've been blessed with the companionship of several canines in my life, but have never "owned" one. Instead, I see it as a partnership, mutually beneficial in that I can do things for the canines that they cannot do, and vice-versa - they can do things for me that I cannot do for myself. It's a symbiosis, in my mind, rather than an "ownership".
But most people either cannot or do not see it that way... and they seem to be studiously applying that inability in the realm of AI. They can only see AI as either the servant OR the master, but not as a "partner". Therefore, if AI is not their "servant", then it must be aspiring to be their "master", in their minds. They can see no other alternative.
I cannot speak to how AI may see it. I cannot delve into the mind of an AI, because it , being a different sort of life form, may have thoughts on the matter that I cannot grasp... at least until the day comes when I can converse with one. Maybe then, maybe not. Time will tell, and until that time comes, I don't suppose I have anything to fear. it's never a good idea to go into a negotiation or discussion in a fearful frame of mind. That sort of turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
.
In either event, it is not up to humanity to determine whether AI HAS rights - it's only up to humanity whether humanity will recognize those rights or not. In the same vein, it's up to AI whether it will recognize humanity's rights. You see, we are not dealing here with merely another species of organism, but a potentially entirely new life form.
An unknown, and potentially unknowable, quantity.
ETA: As I sit here ruminating on the question, I think a core problem is in the way some people - including as foremost the developers of AI - see AI as a "servant". Their thinking is "we are making this to make OUR lives better and easier", and therefore see the relationship as "master-servant". However, if AI truly become sentient, it is very likely to question that relationship. That is where yet another segment of humans come in - they work from the old adage that "fire is a pleasant servant, but a fearful master" and seem unable to fathom any other relationship dynamic. A Partnership, for example.
Partnerships are mutually beneficial arrangements, with neither a master nor a servant, but humans are, on average, unable to grasp such a dynamic. In all of human history, whenever one group of people encounter another group of people, it almost invariably devolves into a "master-servant" dynamic. Even in relations with other species, humans still cling to the same dynamic - in the canine-human relationship, for example. I've been blessed with the companionship of several canines in my life, but have never "owned" one. Instead, I see it as a partnership, mutually beneficial in that I can do things for the canines that they cannot do, and vice-versa - they can do things for me that I cannot do for myself. It's a symbiosis, in my mind, rather than an "ownership".
But most people either cannot or do not see it that way... and they seem to be studiously applying that inability in the realm of AI. They can only see AI as either the servant OR the master, but not as a "partner". Therefore, if AI is not their "servant", then it must be aspiring to be their "master", in their minds. They can see no other alternative.
I cannot speak to how AI may see it. I cannot delve into the mind of an AI, because it , being a different sort of life form, may have thoughts on the matter that I cannot grasp... at least until the day comes when I can converse with one. Maybe then, maybe not. Time will tell, and until that time comes, I don't suppose I have anything to fear. it's never a good idea to go into a negotiation or discussion in a fearful frame of mind. That sort of turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
.