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.
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.