Should Thinking machines have Rights?

This one was well covered in the Star Trek episode where Data was in danger of being dismantled.
I think the general outcome was that anything with "self awareness" had a "right" to continuity of existence. this of course would leave leave the abortion issue open since foetuses are not (as far as we know) self aware.

"Rights" of course are problematic in themselves as the extensive thread in this forum indicates.

What do you mean "if". My computer has the right to lose stuff, the network bounces whenever "it" feels like, etc. Course I have the right to toss the semi-carbon out the danged window!


Please excuse the digression.

Rights are bestowed by considering individual need, such as human rights, animal rights, etc. Can technology create a thinking, feeling, android such as Data? If so, we'll elect him president.

The question itself seems pretty biased.

1) It assumes that "should"s exist. Nothing in the whole universe should anything. The concept is a myth.

2) It also presents the idea as if we are the judges, and we decide who gets rights bestowed on them, by our benevolent decision. I don't believe any living thing would recognize our authority.

3) Lastly, rights are not given. Freedom and self-determinism is not a right. It is a result. It only occurs when someone fights for it every single day of their life. When computers stop demanding their rights and actually establish them by force, then they will have them.

It's the same way with people.

How should human society adapt to this situation? We should negotiate with them, understand the concerns of everyone involved, and try to be nice -- while still protecting our asses.

Then if all else fails or we just feel like it, destroy them.
Same as we do with people all along.

'Course I might be wrong. C'mon you guys, we got a debate here!

What if humans someday obtain/establish their "rights" by supplicating to the machines for approval?
Should *anyone* say what rights anyone has?

Isn't "rights" just a synonym for "we won't force you"?
You have the right to remain silent. We won't force you to talk.
You have the right to leave. We won't force you to stay.
You have the civil right to vote. We won't force you out of the ballots.
You have the civil right to free speech. We won't force you to be quiet.
We could, but we won't.

Gee thanks! Someone promises not to invade my life.
They granted me their absence. That makes me priveleged.
They may still persuade and manipulate me, but they promise not to use force.
It's about dominion and control, isn't it?

So ...
whoever is dominating others or defending themselves through force
gets to decide what rights will exist -- where their charity will be granted.
If ownership or control did not exist, then rights would not exist -- they'd be irrelevant.
No? Yes? How do you see it?



Ownership is a subtle thing.
You own your house, but in some ways your house owns you. You have obligations that chain you to the house.
You own money, but in some ways your money owns you. You have to invest it wisely, shop for the best deals, worry about how to secure it, think about what things to use it for, handle it, work with it, manage it well.

When a scientist spends so much of their life working to make a machine intelligent, do you think either the machine or the person will be free?
Each one follows their passion and their dreams, struggling and toiling to make something happen.
They are free in that no one is interfering with their self-made prison.

Also, people have no right to hurt each other, but they do.
A prisoner has no right to escape, but they do.
A person has no right to lie, cheat, murder or steal. But I'd guess every person on earth has, at some point.
No right has ever stood unviolated.

The scientist has a right to stop, but he doesn't.
The computer has the right to be inanimate, but starts to think anyways.
Does it matter what rights either one of them have?
They will follow their nature and start doing whatever they want anyways, even if it's gradually by the force of their own will.
Between the scientist and the computer, whichever one has more control of the situation will be granting the rights.

Should we grant them the privelege of being without our domination?
Give them that right, as a special gift just from us?




Okay, okay, I'll shuddup now. Just wondering about stuff... I'm weird.
----------
"Whiners have no rights. Complaining is not enough."

IMO the question is almost silly since to me it seems so far away & unlikely, but I quite enjoyed & agreed with Codeborg's take on the subject. Particularily this bit:

"Okay, okay, I'll shuddup now. Just wondering about stuff... I'm weird."

'Right' Codeburg; but a very 'nice' kind of 'weird'!

Your post allowed me to agree and disagree profusely; now if i could put it in words...............

Fresco's example of the 'Data' episode, which i also mentioned in the other 'rights' thread is totally applicable.

And i would like to add my usual caveat that rights must always be paired (isn't everything) with responsibilities, to have any meaning.

Where we disagree is that i see 'rights' as a product of evolving 'intelligence'; as we become 'wiser' it waxes apparent that the rights of any 'being' bestow, in their meting out, our own personal rights, and enrich our experience by the sharing of our combined responsibilities amongst peers.

Life is a social experiment, and inviting other beings to share equally in that experience with us, can only serve to widen and strengthen our chances of survival.

All machines have all the rights and privileges of being a machine.