I think this says more about human shallowness than anything else. The way to get people to engage with questions of AI rights is just to make pictures that look human. This comes up with every high-quality animatronic that makes the news. It can be little more than a preprogramed moving mannequin with prerecorded voice, and people will start saying things like "this raises questions about the nature of humanity." Meanwhile, if we could make an AGI in an even mildly not-quite-human body, people would easily dismiss it.
Ask any number of autistic people. When you don't do the proper eyebrow semaphore on your face, people just assume that the emotions don't exist underneath.
WTF is "AI rights"? The reason most people don't take it seriously, is because they don't think AI is sentient. Which is the reasonable assumption to make.
It's not even an assumption. It's a simple fact at this point. My point was that a lot of people start to soften on their "it's just a machine", regardless of whether there's any reason to suspect that there's anything particularly complex underneath.
18
u/Phemto_B Aug 19 '24
I think this says more about human shallowness than anything else. The way to get people to engage with questions of AI rights is just to make pictures that look human. This comes up with every high-quality animatronic that makes the news. It can be little more than a preprogramed moving mannequin with prerecorded voice, and people will start saying things like "this raises questions about the nature of humanity." Meanwhile, if we could make an AGI in an even mildly not-quite-human body, people would easily dismiss it.
Ask any number of autistic people. When you don't do the proper eyebrow semaphore on your face, people just assume that the emotions don't exist underneath.