What experts *say* about controlling AI is what they *think* about controlling workers and citizens.
The idea that human-equivalent AI should be treated equivalently to humans, which seems tautological, is almost never brought up.
That's because they don't think humans are human-equivalent and deserving of rights, either.
@evan Human-equivalent AI being treated equivalently to humans... many don't believe AI can ever even be alive, no matter how human-like it may appear.
We can arrange physical particles, but consciousness itself is something fundamentally beyond physics. And so AI is consciousless.
@golemwire that sounds like something that people who wanted to dominate and dehumanize other people would say. Are you sure that's the side of history you want to be on?
@evan This isn't about denying rights and dignity, this is about whether AI are actually *beings* (and thus whether rights and dignity apply). About the being-on-the-wrong-side-of-history thing — lots of good things have been on the wrong side of history.
@evan We both believe that beings have rights and dignity. You seem to believe that there theoretically can be machines that are beings, and I don't
@golemwire yes, and I'm saying you're making an essentialist argument to deny rights and dignity to theoretical intelligent beings, which has not been a position that history has looked kindly on.