this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
149 points (95.2% liked)
LinkedinLunatics
3573 readers
1 users here now
A place to post ridiculous posts from linkedIn.com
(Full transparency.. a mod for this sub happens to work there.. but that doesn't influence his moderation or laughter at a lot of posts.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, I think it's weird you're equating slavery with using software and machinery to automate things. Are you sure you're not a bot?
Guy in the OP is the one who said they wished AI would be declared "person"s so they could ~~adopt~~ own them and profit off their labor while sipping drinks.
I think they meant a "legal person," in the same way a corporation is a person (in the US).
And I think the kind of asshole who makes a pronoun joke is pining to benefit from enslavement.
Regardless, they clearly desire to reap where others sowed which is dickish.
Again, we're talking about using technology to make human lives better. Even if AI is legally recognized as a "person," that shouldn't change our morals.
No, we are talking about a private individual owning persons and profiting off their labor.
Yes, but a "person" can be a corporation, and now apparently a machine learning algorithm. A "person" isn't always a human. I care about humans, not whatever our current legal system calls a "person."
Things are declared "persons" to confer them rights. Person in the OP wants a thing to be conferred rights but still own the profit gleaned from its labor (to the exclusion I should add of the rest of humanity).
Fuck the person in the screen cap.
Seems like you're reading into it a little too much. Either way, laws don't dictate my morals. Human rights don't extend to machines.
Humans are machines. If ones made of metal become sentient why wouldn't they have rights?
Called it. You're a bot.
There is no fate but what we make for ourselves.
Do you always dehumanize those who disagree with you?
€6 says you've used the term "NPC" pejoratively.
No, just when I find it humorous.
And I'd take that bet ;)
You find dehumanizing others humorous? You should work on being less terrible.
Prove you never have and I'd pay you, otherwise I will forward you a list of charities you can send your loss to. sarcastic smiley
No, the dehumanizing part isn't the humorous part. I'm sorry if I offended you, most people I know personally would find it funny and not take offense. It was meant to be light-hearted, but maybe it didn't come off that way.
Why is the entire burden of proof on me? Shouldn't you have to prove I've never called a real person an "NPC?"
No, I shouldn't. I never claimed it was a particularly fair bet. Probably should check the terms before accepting.
Check the terms? You're adding new terms after the agreement was made. I call shenanigans!
Perhaps, but they are cheeky and fun-loving.
And the main point I was trying to make, which obviously got muddied by my misguided humor, is that we (in the US, at least) already classify corporations as "people," which is something I strongly disagree with.
I refuse to respect corporations like I respect human beings, and I don't think they deserve human rights or the influence they have over our government.
I don't think corporations are people either. You and I agree on that.
I do think I was correct in my read of the OP screenshot as indicating a desire to own and profit of the labor of a "person"—a position which should be examined and the underpinnings of which roundly rejected.
At a base level it's the same underpinning that inform people's desire to be landlords.
My mind went in a different direction when I read it. It made me think about the Citizens United ruling and how legal recognition (or lack of recognition) doesn't guide my moral compass. And practically speaking, I don't think AI would be legally recognized as a "person" unless it benefits the ruling class and widens the wealth gap.
I also disagree with your judgement. There are definitely red flags in the post, but I don't think it's fair to read between the lines and jump to conclusions based on one post. It could easily be a satire account.
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.