• Magnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 hours ago

    AI could never be considered a person because you have to be human for that to apply. Even if it was a human and we uploaded it, that still wouldn’t apply. You need a pulse. Or at the very least, your head.

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      “personhood” by the law only refers to the ability to sign contracts.

      companies and states already have that.

      what you’re talking about is a “natural person”.

      • Magnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        36 minutes ago

        I’m talking about whatever nomenclature people think will be used to put a fucking TV with a face on the stand so it can defend its right to liberty and the same protections afforded to it as we afford to us.

        Never happen.

        Call it whatever you want.

        • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 minutes ago

          It’s already happened. The corporations who own the “AI” are already “people”. They don’t put the “corporation” on the stand but a bunch of lawyers. It’s not a big step at all from “AI” being “human”. Neither corporations nor “AI” are actually people. Just put some lawyers up there.

        • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          27 minutes ago

          Wow I wonder which has meaningful power and influence? The rivers, right? Those dang rivers always controlling the state… Trump will no doubt put a stop to that!