This is hands down the most ethically questionable argument I've heard in a long time.
Arguing that human rights are only granted out of self-interest is not even a slippery slope-- that's basically a waterslide into pre-1900 racism: After all, what's stopping you from splitting humanity across easily identifiable features (skull shape, skin color, etc), and then denying basic rights to that subgroup because you're not part of it?
There is also a gigantic mismatch with current common ethical standards: Animals are afforded some rights ("no cruelty"), which a large part of humanity strongly agrees with-- even though they don't self-identify as cattle.
Denying rights to AIs with human level cognitive capabilities would thus be very likely to be perceived as unethical by a large part of our population.
>Arguing that human rights are only granted out of self-interest is not even a slippery slope-- that's basically a waterslide into pre-1900 racism: After all, what's stopping you from splitting humanity across easily identifiable features (skull shape, skin color, etc), and then denying basic rights to that subgroup because you're not part of it?
Plot twist: nothing. And it has happened time and again, "human rights" is just a human construct, that when uncomfortable for those in power, dissolves. They're kept as long as it's either convenient to have them there, or as those who could be hurt can yield the necessary social/political/military/raw power to resist them taking away from them. E.g. Japanese American during world war 2 couldn't afford them anymore.
And just for a somewhat recent example, people who smoked marijuana weren't afforded that luxury - instead their human rights were violated, they put in prisons where they were treated like cattle, away from their kids and families, even though they were perfectly normal people, they didn't otherwise hurt anybody or done anything to somebody's property, and rationally thinking, smoking some plant shouldn't take away your rights.
Not only it did, but it was also a law, and hundreds of millions were OK with it, while the whole local and federal governments enforced it, until a couple decades ago. And that's while same society championed "human rights".
>There is also a gigantic mismatch with current common ethical standards: Animals are afforded some rights ("no cruelty"), which a large part of humanity strongly agrees with-- even though they don't self-identify as cattle.
Doesn't matter much, as in this case too, it's humanity granting them. It can do favours to other species if they feel magnanimus and the conditions are right. And at the first or second inconvenience it can take them away too. After all, those rights don't preclude animals for being used in experiements, or being killed and eaten. They stop when its incovenient, and they outlines mark our convenience/interests boundaries.
I don't think you would make a very good babysitter for pets because of the worldview you've outlined.
That said, at least it's internally consistent. Are you aware that the way you're talking and thinking about this is highly abnormal, most people do not agree and some people would disagree quite violently? I assume as a functioning member of society you can handle these disagreements, otherwise you'd be imprisoned after your first conversation with a vegan activist or something. How would you handle it if society decided that AIs were to be afforded personhood and rights, like it was the law etc? Would you go along with it like you go along with animals having rights despite not caring about what happens to them personally? Or would you violate the law and abuse/disrespect them out of principle?
This is hands down the most ethically questionable argument I've heard in a long time.
Arguing that human rights are only granted out of self-interest is not even a slippery slope-- that's basically a waterslide into pre-1900 racism: After all, what's stopping you from splitting humanity across easily identifiable features (skull shape, skin color, etc), and then denying basic rights to that subgroup because you're not part of it?
There is also a gigantic mismatch with current common ethical standards: Animals are afforded some rights ("no cruelty"), which a large part of humanity strongly agrees with-- even though they don't self-identify as cattle.
Denying rights to AIs with human level cognitive capabilities would thus be very likely to be perceived as unethical by a large part of our population.