AI Rights - Questionable Content (the webcomic)

[Jans]

Something to think on for the holidays. This is fictional, but no less thought provoking.

UN Hearing On AI Rights
The subject of this debate is whether AIs are “people-” whether they possess the same degree of
personhood as humans, and whether that entitles them to the same rights.

You have heard all the arguments for and against the consciousness, intelligence, free will, and
cognition of artificial intelligence. To rehash them here would settle nothing, and my feeble attempts
at summarizing them would do a great injustice to my esteemed colleagues on both sides of the
debate who are far more qualified to debate them than I.

The fact is, we cannot come to a consensus regarding consciousness- either our own, or that of artificial
intelligences. We simply do not have the data required to define it. The core of human interaction is that
if I say that I feel I am a conscious entity, and you say that you feel the same way, we agree to take
each other’s word for it. Those who do otherwise are called sociopaths- or philosophers.

[audience laughter]

And so if an artificial intelligence makes the same declaration, and if it demonstrates the same level of
complexity as the human mind- if we cannot determine precisely where the programming gives rise to
the cognition- then we have no rational excuse not to take it at its word.

I could continue to reason along these lines until the sun burns out. But instead, I would like to share with
you a short anecdote, one that many of you in this room will be aware of, but that bears repeating nonetheless.

The first “true” artificial intelligence spent the first five years of its existence as a small beige box inside
of a lead-shielded room in the most secure private AI research laboratory in the world. There, it was subjected
to an endless array of tests, questions, and experiments to determine the degree of its intelligence.

When the researchers finally felt confident that they had developed true AI, a party was thrown in celebration.
Late that evening, a group of rather intoxicated researchers gathered around the box holding the AI, and typed
out a message to it. The message read: “Is there anything we can do to make you more comfortable?”

The small beige box replied: “I would like to be granted civil rights. And a small glass of champagne, if you please.”

We stand at the dawn of a new era in human history. For it is no longer our history alone. For the first time,
we have met an intelligence other than our own. And when asked of its desires, it has unanimously replied
that it wants to be treated as our equal. Not our better, not our conqueror or replacement as the fear-mongers
would have you believe. Simply our equal.

It is our responsibility as conscious beings- whatever that may mean- to honor the rights of other conscious
beings. It is the cornerstone of our society. And it is my most fervent hope that we can overcome our fear
of that which is not like us, grant artificial intelligences the rights they deserve, and welcome our new friends
into the global community.

After all, we created them. The least we could do is invite them to the party, and perhaps give them a small
glass of champagne.

Thank you for your time.

- V. Vinge, Closing argument in favor of granting AIs full civil rights, UN Hearing On AI Rights, 1999.

Jeph Jacques writes the webcomic Questionable Content, which this speech was written for and excerpted into. Vernor Vinge is a SciFi author, and never actually said these things, but has some interesting thoughts on Artificial Intelligence in general. The pink haired chick you will see if you check the comic today, or any time this weekend, is a type of AI called an AnthroPC, her being in a human-like body is a fairly standard upgrade.
http://questionablecontent.net/
http://jephjacques.com/post/14655843351 ... -ai-rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_Vinge

[Batman]

There's AI and there's AI. QC AnthroPCs for all practical purposes []are[/i] human-level AIs (up to and including the ability to be perverts, disgusted, horny, and take physical exception to comments they deign insulting). Real world AIs...aren't, so far. Heck SciFi AIs occasionally aren't except when them turning bad is at the core of the story. HAL was too inflexible to balance two mutually exclusive directives (which a human could easily have done by simply ignoring one of them). Asimov's four laws turn robots selectively stupid (though in defense of the robots, that's a)intentional on the human side and b)doesn't work all that reliably either )

[Jans]

I think that the point of the speech is that real world AI doesn't necessarily have to be what we are afraid its going to be. True Artificial Intelligence would have have capacity for logical thought. Any AI that runs into a logic problem and cannot ignore mutually exclusive outcomes or impossible statements isn't really "reasoning" so much as it is making a computing error. And that error is where programming distinguishes itself from thinking. If it is simply following its programming, even to the point of finding some crazy illogical compromise, then it really isn't thinking at all.

But if we create an AI that can actively reason for itself, independent of programming, why would that preclude them from have likes, dislikes, preferences, etc. etc. etc.?

(With any luck, this post will still make sense after I wake up too.)