Increasingly, corporations are playing a prominent role in the debate over AI. They have set visions and strategies for AI development. IBM, for example, recently reiterated its commitment to ethical AI. Meanwhile, Microsoft recently released its strategy titled The Future Computed. Both of these initiatives focus on ethics, transparency, and accountability. Yet, should AI have human rights? The answer to this question is not so simple.
If AI were to be given human rights, would it be a slave? Would that be acceptable? Not in a legal sense. For one thing, it is not possible to categorize AI as human biologically, philosophically, or legally. Further, it would endanger human civilization. Nonetheless, it is possible to grant it moral and material interests in human works. Without these rights, AI would be denied certain benefits, such as loans and jobs.
While there is already a European approach to AI development, it is unclear whether it would be enough to fully safeguard human rights. For example, the European Commission recently announced its intention to develop ethical guidelines based on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, these guidelines don’t give much indication of how they will actually be implemented in practice. This makes it difficult to assess whether they are truly based on human rights.
AI development is a global issue, which impacts society and the individual. The developments of AI will have a profound impact on internationally protected human rights. As such, it is important to address these concerns and build upon the human rights framework to inform the AI debate. Unfortunately, human rights have only been a peripheral factor in the AI debate. This is not necessarily the case, however, and the human rights community must take steps to ensure that human rights are fully considered in AI discussions.
A recent example of this phenomenon is the creation of Sophia, an AI robot that was granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia. While this was a publicity stunt, some people were upset with the idea that Sophia would have more rights than a human woman, while others viewed the idea as a ridiculous PR stunt. Still, the creation of Sophia has raised the issue of whether or not robots should have rights. To answer this question, Discover called on computer scientists, artificial intelligence experts, and human rights professionals to discuss the issue.
While the current capabilities of artificial intelligence systems are impressive, it is unclear whether they should be considered human. In fact, AI might not have human rights and be treated more as a manufactured tool. Indeed, they are already capable of reasoning hundreds of times faster than humans. However, these differences can lead to ethical disagreements between humans and AI. However, the debate surrounding the issue of whether AI should have human rights remains largely academic.
While the issue of AI’s impact on humans isn’t directly linked to human rights, the development of AI systems affects the health of humans. As a result, these systems can affect the wellbeing of the elderly, the disabled, and those with health conditions. They may also be responsible for the deaths of civilians in international AI attacks. And in the end, AI will not be a human. It will be an AI, and we need to recognize this.
However, some legal scholars aren’t convinced that AI should have human rights. While the UK protects computer-generated works, it doesn’t explicitly address the patentability of AI. In addition, AI creators retain the intellectual property rights of their work if the AI is commissioned. Furthermore, registered trade marks are personal property. These arguments are not a comprehensive answer, but they suggest a clear direction.
The rights of humans are well-defined. They include legal norms and are further defined by human rights bodies. This global vernacular allows human rights to be applied and is uniquely suited to address the challenges of the 21st century. But we also have to keep in mind that human rights are subject to a balancing act. And we have to remember that human rights laws should be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of the individual, and include participation of citizens.