One of the most crucial questions we as a species and as intelligent beings will have to address lies with the rights we plan to grant to AI.

This question is intended to see if a compromise can be found between conservative anthropocentrism and post-human fundamentalism: a response should take into account principles from both perspectives.

Should, and therefore will, AI be granted the same rights as humans or should such systems have different rights (if any at all) ?

Some Background

This question applies both to human-brain based AI (from whole brain emulations to less exact replication) and AI from scratch.

Murray Shanahan, in his book The Technological Singularity, outlines a potential use of AI that could be considered immoral: ruthless parallelization: we could make identical parallel copies of AI to achieve tasks more effectively and even terminate less succesful copies.

Reconciling these two philosophies (conservative anthropocentrism and post-human fundamentalism), should such use of AI be accepted or should certain limitations - i.e. rights - be created for AI?

This question is not related to Would an AI with human intelligence have the same rights as a human under current legal frameworks? for the following reasons:

1. The other question specifies "current legal frameworks"

2. This question is looking for a specific response relating to two fields of thought

3. This question highlights specific cases to analyse and is therefore expects less of a general response and more of a precise analysis

One of the most crucial questions we as a species and as intelligent beings will have to address lies with the rights we plan to grant to AI.

This question is intended to see if a compromise can be found between conservative anthropocentrism and post-human fundamentalism: a response should take into account principles from both perspectives.

Should, and therefore will, AI be granted the same rights as humans or should such systems have different rights (if any at all) ?

Some Background

This question applies both to human-brain based AI (from whole brain emulations to less exact replication) and AI from scratch.

Murray Shanahan, in his book The Technological Singularity, outlines a potential use of AI that could be considered immoral: ruthless parallelization: we could make identical parallel copies of AI to achieve tasks more effectively and even terminate less succesful copies.

Reconciling these two philosophies (conservative anthropocentrism and post-human fundamentalism), should such use of AI be accepted or should certain limitations - i.e. rights - be created for AI?

This question is not related to Would an AI with human intelligence have the same rights as a human under current legal frameworks? for the following reasons:

1. The other question specifies "current legal frameworks"

2. This question is looking for a specific response relating to two fields of thought

3. This question highlights specific cases to analyse and is therefore expects less of a general response and more of a precise analysis

One of the most crucial questions we as a species and as intelligent beings will have to address lies with the rights we plan to grant to AI.

This question is intended to see if a compromise can be found between conservative anthropocentrism and post-human fundamentalism: a response should take into account principles from both perspectives.

Should, and therefore will, AI be granted the same rights as humans or should such systems have different rights (if any at all) ?

Some Background

This question applies both to human-brain based AI (from whole brain emulations to less exact replication) and AI from scratch.

Murray Shanahan, in his book The Technological Singularity, outlines a potential use of AI that could be considered immoral: ruthless parallelization: we could make identical parallel copies of AI to achieve tasks more effectively and even terminate less succesful copies.

Should such use of AI be accepted or should certain limitations i.e. rights be created for AI?

What are the current trends in the ideas of AI resrachers?

This question is not related to Would an AI with human intelligence have the same rights as a human under current legal frameworks? for the following reasons:

1. The other question specifies "current legal frameworks"

2. This question is looking for a specific response relating to two fields of thought

3. This question highlights specific cases to analyse and is therefore expects less of a general response and more of a precise analysis

One of the most crucial questions we as a species and as intelligent beings will have to address lies with the rights we plan to grant to AI.

This question is intended to see if a compromise can be found between conservative anthropocentrism and post-human fundamentalism: a response should take into account principles from both perspectives.

Should, and therefore will, AI be granted the same rights as humans or should such systems have different rights (if any at all) ?

Some Background

This question applies both to human-brain based AI (from whole brain emulations to less exact replication) and AI from scratch.

Murray Shanahan, in his book The Technological Singularity, outlines a potential use of AI that could be considered immoral: ruthless parallelization: we could make identical parallel copies of AI to achieve tasks more effectively and even terminate less succesful copies.

Reconciling these two philosophies (conservative anthropocentrism and post-human fundamentalism), should such use of AI be accepted or should certain limitations - i.e. rights - be created for AI?

This question is not related to Would an AI with human intelligence have the same rights as a human under current legal frameworks? for the following reasons:

1. The other question specifies "current legal frameworks"

2. This question is looking for a specific response relating to two fields of thought

3. This question highlights specific cases to analyse and is therefore expects less of a general response and more of a precise analysis