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.”
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).
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.
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.
No, we are talking about a private individual owning persons and profiting off their labor.
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.”
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.
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.
Humans are machines. If ones made of metal become sentient why wouldn’t they have rights?
Called it. You’re a bot.
There is no fate but what we make for ourselves.
Do you always dehumanize those who disagree with you?
€6 says you’ve used the term “NPC” pejoratively.
No, just when I find it humorous.
And I’d take that bet ;)
You find dehumanizing others humorous? You should work on being less terrible.
Prove you never have and I’d pay you, otherwise I will forward you a list of charities you can send your loss to. sarcastic smiley
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.
How do you feel about corporations being “people?”
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.