Lots of people are afraid of what strong AI could mean for the human race. Some people wish for a sort of "Asimov law" included in the AI code, but maybe we could go a bit more far with the UDHR.

So, Why is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights not included as statement of the A.I.?

As response to comment, response or edition:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clear.

Homo sapiens sapiens (aka "mankind") needs some way to make sure AI evolution does not result in our extinction or enslavement to potentially superior algorithmic intelligences.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think you could make the case that AI has not achieved the necessary intelligence for this, and for all we know, may never do this. $\endgroup$ – GJZ Dec 7 '16 at 17:32
  • $\begingroup$ In the future, this may be an important question for mankind though. $\endgroup$ – GJZ Dec 7 '16 at 17:33

If I understand what you are asking, I think the simple answer would be that AI is nowhere near having demonstrated sentience, thus they do not qualify for any type of rights.

We won't have to "cross this bridge" until an AI demonstrates self-awareness and human-level-or-beyond intelligence, but it sure is interesting to think about!

(Also, the UDHR dates to the 1940's and seems to have had its last additions in 1966. Computers weren't very "smart" back then so likely no on was even considering the question ;)

Although you may also want to look at the grey good scenario, which posits inadvertent destruction of homo sapiens sapiens not as a factor not of too much, but of too little, intelligence.

The problem with an Asimov approach is highlighted by his book I, Robot, which is the potential pitfalls of pure logic. The philosophy of Neo-Luddism is preoccupied with these problems in relation to technology--specifically that the threats posed by technology cannot be predicted.

The problem with the UDHR today is that there is no algorithm smart enough to understand it--we're not even close. (There is something called the symbol grounding problem which demonstrates that meaning and understanding in relation to algorithms is still unsolved.)

  • $\begingroup$ I do not think that dignity nor the rest of the UDHR have suffered the outrages of time but outrages of Humans themselves. $\endgroup$ – aurelien Dec 2 '16 at 4:20
  • $\begingroup$ @aurelien I heartily agree with you that humans seem to be the problem when it comes to violation of human rights in the current era. $\endgroup$ – DukeZhou Aug 14 '17 at 21:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe we should not wait to much to make a cross bridge. The sooner we start to build that bridge the closer we will be with this new form of entity. $\endgroup$ – aurelien Aug 15 '17 at 5:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @aurelien I wholeheartedly agree with you. Many respected thinkers are struggling with this problem. Future of Life Institute and Miri devote a lot of attention to the issue. (My personal take is that after Nash, we can understand that mathematics are the root of ethics. A mathematical approach to philosophy would go a long way toward ensuring precision in the context of human/AI value alignment. i.e. I regard Nash as a philosopher in addition to an important mathematician.) $\endgroup$ – DukeZhou Aug 15 '17 at 19:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.