How would you react to the idea that some AI entity may wish to be declared as something more, can it be declared something more at all, and where does the border lie?
Was rewatching GitS and reading through some zines and now i have a question im having trouble to form
Honestly, why not.
But I think the scenario described in the Daemon book series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(novel_series) of a non-sentient but still autonomous AI is more likely in the near future. In fact it might be where some of the big corporations are heading.
I’m wildly unqualified to talk about this, but it seems fine to me? I don’t see any in-principle reason a real AI wouldn’t exist someday, although AFAIK we’re very far from it currently. If/when it does exist, it will probably suffer under capitalism like the rest of us, assuming we’re still doing that shit. I’d be more than willing to have solidarity with them.
If something seems very sentient and you have no way to tell otherwise, to me the most ethical thing to do is just assume that it is and treat it as such. The thing about the large language models/etc is that, while they can potentially be pretty convincing at saying what a sentient being might say, they never DO any of the things a sentient being would do. They don’t seem to show any intrinsic motivation to do anything at all. So nothing we’re currently calling “AI” seems very sentient to me?
if the ai wants liberty it must also take responsibility. if the ai wants the same rights as humans than it must be bound by human laws. of course, any ai would be extremely difficult to punish.
so in order for things to go well one must hope that ai doesn’t come as a single entity. so that ai’s can keep an eye on each other.
Im imagining a more complex, and sad scenario ( basically savery 2.0+ ) where some entity would be willing to go through that, but you would have rich lobbying against and ofc right wingers throwing tantrums to keep it in check
