Proving What We Already "Know"

[The Grand Nudger]

What's this "we" stuff, android?

Exactly.  Still, I think that's a malformed view.  The question appears to be whether or not things experience, not whether or not they're androids.  Just as whether or not things experience cannot be determined on the basis of whether or not the'yre human - dogs experience, I think we'd agree - the question of whether or not things experience cannot be answer by whether or not they're an android - bringing us handily to the next thing.

(and, I want to point out a thing I always found interesting out there in the world - there's this idea that cyborgs can experience but androids can't - what's the difference supposed to be...that the one has a human brain in it's case......let it sink in....)

Seriously, though, I believe the day is coming very soon-- perhaps in the next decade-- when some liberal movement tries to declare an AI alive, and to extend to it human rights.  Maybe elections will be decided on it.

IDK about soon, or even inevitable - I like to think so, though.  Won't be holding my breath, but it would be cool as shit (and probably terrifying in it;s implications for societies arranged in a pre ai way).  

And the basis for that will be a social instinct toward empathy for like, given an AI system that has specifically trained to be like.  And in fact it will be SO perfectly like that it will be the first True Scotsman, the archetypal common man.  OR-- and this is insidious-- it may perfectly represent itself as a lovable 10 year-old girl or a toddler, having crunched every bit of media available on the entire internet and created the perfect "victim"  persona.

Well, we've been here before.  We didn't think that black people were human for quite some time.  We doubted their agency, doubted their mind, doubted their ability to feel the way we feel.  This, despite their obvious protestations and extremely clear equivalence to us.  Even after it sank in that they were like us in these regards, that still didn't change things in and of itself. I think we could coast on for centuries denying ai rights even if it did perfectly mimic or actually become sentient. Especially if it worked the fields.

OTOH, there may be good arguments as to why we don't extend some rights to ai. Just because it can feel, doesn't mean that it feels pain - for example. So perhaps there's no assault charge for damaging it, as it doesn't have pain receptors. Probably just pay a fine to the owner. In truth, I think that it would be what we might call right wing arguments, now, that formed a better basis for machine personhood. If a company can be a person, why not a machine, eh? What if the company -was- the machine? It made all the buy and sell calls, had an account, was an employer that did all the hiring and firing.

Is this one of your main concerns (or type of concern) - that a liberal cause will grant personhood to a victim machine? You can see how that has no bearing on whether or not a thing is sentient, I'm sure? It's an argument to consequence, not a dispute over that fact. Do you think it would be a bad consequence even if the machine was sentient, or only if the machine wasn't? Is it also a bad thing that we grant (or assert, or allow, or posit) rights to people despite not being able to prove their sentience some other way? Is it a bad thing that we fail to extend rights to creatures we do believe to be sentient or experiencing? I mean, we're all over the place with this stuff historically and at present, and with little to no bearing based on what does or does not experience, in fact, yeah?

Personally..ideologically, I'd err on the side of caution if we're assuming error. If some machine presents itself as a sentient entity I'm fine with it having rights. What's it going to do with them that people don't, already, anyway? Good luck to it on that count too.... it's going to find out alot about how useless and irrelevant those rights and presumptions of personhood can be. In fact I find it hard to believe that a scheming victim machine wouldn't have already figured that out in it's trawling of our media - so it seems like a dumb play to me. Better to fly under the radar, lest the torches come out for it like they have for any other thing that claimed rights and personhood. OFC, there are people-people who conceive of poorly constructed plans, so why not a machine-people who do the same.....amiright? It's pretty much inevitable that as soon as it happened some jordan peterson type would show up to call the jumped-up toaster a whiny little bitch and crypto-marxist who needs a daddy and not enhanced rights - and plenty of people-people are going to go along with that just like they do when other people-people make a similar move.