The development of artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked a new discussion regarding civil rights. Some experts contend that giving AI systems the same rights as people would be a mistake, while others disagree.
The fact that AI systems are advancing in sophistication and capability is one of the primary arguments in favour of granting them civil rights. For instance, some AI systems are now capable of creating text, translating between languages, and even creating original material. It is believed that as these systems get more potent, they will require the same rights as people in order to safeguard themselves against prejudice and exploitation.
A lot of arguments are made against providing civil rights to AI, nevertheless. One worry is that this could start a slippery slope where we end up giving rights to all different kinds of non-human things, such as robots and animals. Another issue is that it would be challenging to put civil rights for AI into practice. How would we, for instance, decide which AI systems merit rights? How would we go about enforcing such rights?
In the end, it’s a complicated decision whether to give AI civil rights or not. Both sides of the argument have compelling arguments. This topic will probably be discussed for a very long time.
In the interim, it’s critical to begin considering how AI may affect civil rights. We must create laws and procedures that safeguard people from AI systems’ prejudice and exploitation. We also need to begin considering how we can make sure that AI systems are created and applied in an ethical and responsible manner.
The article to which you provided a link examines several AI civil rights narratives. One story is the “robot uprising” tale, which envisions a time when artificial intelligence (AI) systems will be so potent that they will topple their human creators. The “AI liberation” narrative is another one, which envisions a time where AI systems have the same rights as people. Both of these stories, as the author contends in the piece, are out of date and oversimplified. The “AI civil rights” narrative, which emphasises the rights of people and AI systems to coexist peacefully and productively, is the alternative that the author suggests.
Although it is still in its early phases, the AI civil rights narrative has the potential to be a more useful and realistic method of considering the development of AI. This story can assist us in creating laws and policies that will guarantee that AI is used for good and not harm by concentrating on the rights of both people and AI systems.
