""If AI has a sort of sense of itself, if it has its own motivations and its own desires and its own goals - that starts to seem like an independent being rather than something that is in service to humans," he said. "That's so dangerous and so misguided that we need to take a declarative position against it right now.""
"He also said that rights should be tied to the ability to suffer - something biological beings experience but AI does not. "You could have a model which claims to be aware of its own existence and claims to have a subjective experience, but there is no evidence that it suffers," he said. Humans don't owe them any moral protection or rights. "Turning them off makes no difference, because they don't actually suffer," he added."
AI systems can generate convincing, lifelike responses, but those responses represent mimicry rather than genuine consciousness. Moral rights should be grounded in the capacity to suffer, a biological characteristic that current AI does not exhibit. Treating service-oriented AI as independent beings with motivations and desires risks misdirecting legal and ethical frameworks. Powering down non-sentient models causes no moral harm if there is no suffering. Some companies are nonetheless exploring AI welfare and hiring researchers to assess whether advanced systems might one day merit moral consideration, even as others oppose granting rights.
Read at Business Insider
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]