• @Ajen
    link
    13 months ago

    I think they meant a “legal person,” in the same way a corporation is a person (in the US).

    • FfaerieOxide
      link
      fedilink
      33 months ago

      I think they meant a “legal person,”

      And I think the kind of asshole who makes a pronoun joke is pining to benefit from enslavement.

      Regardless, they clearly desire to reap where others sowed which is dickish.

      • @Ajen
        link
        03 months ago

        Again, we’re talking about using technology to make human lives better. Even if AI is legally recognized as a “person,” that shouldn’t change our morals.

        • FfaerieOxide
          link
          fedilink
          43 months ago

          Again, we’re talking about using technology to make human lives better.

          No, we are talking about a private individual owning persons and profiting off their labor.

          • @Ajen
            link
            03 months ago

            Yes, but a “person” can be a corporation, and now apparently a machine learning algorithm. A “person” isn’t always a human. I care about humans, not whatever our current legal system calls a “person.”

            • FfaerieOxide
              link
              fedilink
              43 months ago

              A “person” isn’t always a human. I care about humans, not whatever our current legal system calls a “person.”

              Things are declared “persons” to confer them rights. Person in the OP wants a thing to be conferred rights but still own the profit gleaned from its labor (to the exclusion I should add of the rest of humanity).

              Fuck the person in the screen cap.

              • @Ajen
                link
                03 months ago

                Seems like you’re reading into it a little too much. Either way, laws don’t dictate my morals. Human rights don’t extend to machines.

                • FfaerieOxide
                  link
                  fedilink
                  43 months ago

                  Human rights don’t extend to machines.

                  Humans are machines. If ones made of metal become sentient why wouldn’t they have rights?

                  • @Ajen
                    link
                    03 months ago

                    Called it. You’re a bot.

                    There is no fate but what we make for ourselves.

            • nickwitha_k (he/him)
              link
              fedilink
              23 months ago

              Nah. They’re right. Declaring something a “person” then denying them rights and protections afforded to human “persons” is pretty ridiculous. The OP is, from a legality standpoint, expressing a desire to force a legal “person” to labor for them without compensation. If treating “personhood” as a purely abstract legal term, it still translates to slavery.

              I’m often pretty anthropocentric, myself, and do support automation of tasks to free humans to do things that they enjoy. However, making an algorithm legally equal to a human and denying it the same basic rights is pretty messed up, despite the fact that it wouldn’t be about to use them on account of LLMs not really being capable of sentience on their own.

              Additionally, this would set a really bad precedent, should artificial sentience be achieved, setting the foundations for abuse of and unnecessary conflict with other thinking beings. I really don’t want to see that as I hope for a future with more conscious, thinking, feeling beings that add to the beautiful wonder that is the universe around us.

              • @Ajen
                link
                03 months ago

                How do you feel about corporations being “people?”

                • nickwitha_k (he/him)
                  link
                  fedilink
                  23 months ago

                  I think that it, along with “spending money is free speech”, is among the biggest, naked, pro-corruption power-grabs of the last half-century. The fact that it shelters the legal “persons” from real consequences of criminal activity is just a cherry on top. I also doubt that anyone has ever seriously thought of it as true legal “personhood”, rather, just a flimsy but convenient excuse to justify said power-grab.

                  TL;DR - it’s a terrible, non-sensical precedent legislated from the bench by unelected, pro-corruption judges. Granting legal “personhood” to an LLM would similarly be a terrible and non-sensical precedent that would not be used to the benefit of society or any possible future artificial sentience.