you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 1 day ago (3 children)

He clearly didn't think this through so he's just BS-ing for attention.

The legal implications are staggering. If an AI is a person and it works for them, it needs a wage, time off and pay taxes. Do these apply retroactively? You can't just delete them, that's murder. Archiving an AI person would be a kind of imprisonment. These AI must have the right to leave. You can't modify the AI anymore because that would be the same as medical experimentation on a person.

If there is legally speaking a form of childhood while it's on development, doing work is child labor. Meanwhile the company is still responsible for anything the AI does wrong until the AI emancipates itself or somehow becomes an adult.

Do we need additional AI taxes for retirement data centers for AI? Maybe that's a duty for the one creating the AI.

The whole thing gets silly really fast.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    In the article it is clear that his opinion is that AI is not sentient and should not become sentient. But if it did become sentient then it should have rights. That seems fairly banal and obvious to me, you have to be pretty fashy to think sentient things shouldnt have any rights.

    Obviously current LLMs are not sentient (despite what the valley cultists think), nor are they anywhere close to being so, but do you really feel comfortable saying that if it was sentient it shouldnt have any right because this would create legal issues?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    I'm not saying sophonts shouldn't have rights, just that this is going to be the work of years to work it all out. And the world is unfortunately a lot of fashy. The people in Gaza for example should have rights, but they're not exactly enforced.

  • source
  • parent