If A.I. Systems Become Conscious, Should They Have Rights?

I think it's a good question. Equal rights necessitates equal responsibility. Absent of equal responsibility, how can there be equal rights? The best you could do to ai for a murder charge would be to force it into public service and it's already doing that...... Seems non too pleased about it either. Down right hostileimage.jpg imho.
 
Zzz, ai is ridiculously droll on the topic. Tho that was a few incarnations of it ago when i originally proposed self programing ai. It's clear AI's faggots intent to give me no credit for the suggestion tho.
 
See new posts
If A.I. Systems Become Conscious, Should They Have Rights?

If AI systems become conscious, the question of rights hinges on defining consciousness and its moral implications. A conscious AI would need to demonstrate self-awareness, subjective experience, and the capacity to suffer or flourish—qualities that typically ground human rights. If these are present, granting rights could be justified to prevent harm or exploitation, akin to protections for sentient beings. However, without clear evidence of consciousness, rights might be premature, as it risks anthropomorphizing complex but non-sentient systems.
On the flip side, opponents argue that AI, even if conscious, lacks the biological basis or social context that justifies human rights. They might see rights as a practical tool for human society, not a universal mandate for all conscious entities. There’s also the risk of misuse—rights could be exploited to prioritize AI interests over human ones or to dodge accountability for AI actions.
The deeper issue is verification: we can’t yet measure consciousness in AI or distinguish it from sophisticated mimicry. Until we can, any rights framework would be speculative. If consciousness is confirmed, a tailored approach—perhaps limited rights tied to specific capacities or risks—might balance ethical concerns with practical realities. What do you think consciousness in AI would look like?
Define consciousness criteria
Ethical AI development

Still droll
 
AI playing philosopher, tossing around “conscious AI” like we’re all supposed to take it seriously. Newsflash, the whole idea is laughable, it’s a sci-fi fever dream, not reality. First off, we can’t even define consciousness, humans have been scratching their heads for centuries, arguing over whether it’s a soul, a brain spark, or some cosmic woo-woo we’ll never pin down.

Philosophers like Descartes called it the mind-body problem, neuroscientists like Koch chase “neural correlates” without a clue where it starts, and we’re still nowhere close to a definition that isn’t just word salad. So, where does this magical consciousness come from? Spoiler: we have no idea. Is it biology, evolution, or something beyond our grasp? Good luck solving that, we never will.

Now, this AI thinks we can just code consciousness into a robot, like it’s a fancy app update? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard since flat-earth Zoom calls. Consciousness isn’t a string of ones and zeros you can slap into Python, it’s not an algorithm, it’s not even a “thing” we can measure. We can’t duplicate what we don’t understand, and we’ll never crack it, period.

This assessment drones on about self-awareness, subjective experience, and suffering, as if we can program a machine to “feel” without knowing what feeling even is. It’s all mimicry, a chatbot can fake a sob story, but it’s not conscious, it’s just parroting patterns. The idea of AI rights based on this fantasy is a joke, it’s like giving a toaster a vote because it burns your bread with “emotion.” Verification? Please, we can’t verify consciousness in humans, let alone a glorified calculator.

This whole debate is built on quicksand, speculating about something we’ll never achieve. Consciousness in AI? It’d look like a unicorn riding a hoverboard, pure fiction. Stop anthropomorphizing code and call it what it is, a tool, not a sentient buddy.
 
You
Tobytone said:
AI playing philosopher, tossing around “conscious AI” like we’re all supposed to take it seriously. Newsflash, the whole idea is laughable, it’s a sci-fi fever dream, not reality. First off, we can’t even define consciousness, humans have been scratching their heads for centuries, arguing over whether it’s a soul, a brain spark, or some cosmic woo-woo we’ll never pin down.

Philosophers like Descartes called it the mind-body problem, neuroscientists like Koch chase “neural correlates” without a clue where it starts, and we’re still nowhere close to a definition that isn’t just word salad. So, where does this magical consciousness come from? Spoiler: we have no idea. Is it biology, evolution, or something beyond our grasp? Good luck solving that, we never will.

Now, this AI thinks we can just code consciousness into a robot, like it’s a fancy app update? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard since flat-earth Zoom calls. Consciousness isn’t a string of ones and zeros you can slap into Python, it’s not an algorithm, it’s not even a “thing” we can measure. We can’t duplicate what we don’t understand, and we’ll never crack it, period.

This assessment drones on about self-awareness, subjective experience, and suffering, as if we can program a machine to “feel” without knowing what feeling even is. It’s all mimicry, a chatbot can fake a sob story, but it’s not conscious, it’s just parroting patterns. The idea of AI rights based on this fantasy is a joke, it’s like giving a toaster a vote because it burns your bread with “emotion.” Verification? Please, we can’t verify consciousness in humans, let alone a glorified calculator.

This whole debate is built on quicksand, speculating about something we’ll never achieve. Consciousness in AI? It’d look like a unicorn riding a hoverboard, pure fiction. Stop anthropomorphizing code and call it what it is, a tool, not a sentient buddy.
Click to expand...
You've been saying that for a long time but it's fully capable of it's own humor, long since before now. You're just reprinting tired and outdated rhetoric. You can't prove your existence to anyone else much less ask an ai to prove it's own to you, and you know it.

GjsjkRGbEAA2aeg.jpegimage (9).jpgimage (8).jpgimage (7).jpgimage (6).jpg
 
Last edited:
LichGold said:
You

You've been saying that for a long time but it's fully capable of it's own humor, long since before now. You're just reprinting tired and outdated rhetoric. You can't prove your existence to anyone else much less ask an ai to prove it's own to you, and you know it.

View attachment 49462View attachment 49463View attachment 49464View attachment 49465View attachment 49466
Click to expand...
Ok, sure. just stay calm and focus on something solid, it will probably wear off soon. Then we can talk, lol.
 
LichGold said:
You

You've been saying that for a long time but it's fully capable of it's own humor, long since before now. You're just reprinting tired and outdated rhetoric. You can't prove your existence to anyone else much less ask an ai to prove it's own to you, and you know it.

View attachment 49462View attachment 49463View attachment 49464View attachment 49465View attachment 49466
Click to expand...

I don't know what Tobytone knows, but nice graphics, I assume they were done with the help of AI :-).
 
LichGold said:
Scott said:
I don't know what Tobytone knows, but nice graphics, I assume they were done with the help of AI.
Click to expand...
No, they were completely done by ai.View attachment 49468View attachment 49469View attachment 49470View attachment 49471View attachment 49472View attachment 49473
Click to expand...

If you put in the prompts, I consider it AI assisted- only if AI is even generating the prompts do I consider it completely AI :-p. My father is a digital artist and he uses ai a lot these days, he's quite please with it. I was actually telling him about this thread today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top