Maybe after we strip rights from corporations and give them to animals. Only then will this even be worth discussion.
I love the position the Pope took on this.
AI Companies: “Our AI bots are ensouled and sentient.”
Pope: “So you have an ensouled and sentient being you make to do work for you? That’s Slavery.”
AI Companies: “…”
The AI industry is already floating the idea of AI rights while actual humans lose jobs, privacy and control to systems nobody can properly explain. Before anyone asks whether a chatbot deserves protection, maybe ask why we’re handing so much power to technology that routinely gets basic facts wrong.
Exactly. Citizens United was a dagger to democracy. Rights for software just means more rights for those who own the software. Its been made abundantly clear in the last 10 years who owns all these services and conveniences; (y)our operating system, movies, music, car since you can’t afford to buy, computer, shopping data, house since you can’t afford to buy…
Demos does not mean "extra rights for the acquired power of some rich prick”
LLMs are not, and will never be, conscious or even remotely human. It is a software product residing on computer hardware developed and owned by large corporate entities. This cynical campaign to “give AI rights” is tech sophistry pushed by dishonest CEOs pumping up their stock price by attempting to imbue their products with authority.
The idea that we should grant rights to software that is carefully engineered to represent the interests of billionaires when we can’t even guarantee rights to the actual people the AI industry is attempting to displace is astoundingly anti-human, and indicative of just how disconnected from society these people are.
Yeah, it’s like giving rights to a typeahead buffer. There’s fuckery afoot when someone like this makes such a proposal.
Holy shit, this is CLEARLY a marketing stunt to try and “prove” they’re smarter than they look.
It’s code, it’s algorithms, difference engines, very basic stuff working together to give an appearance of “intelligence” and then they use human-like phrasing and responses to sound or appear human; but in no capacity are they capable to “think” on their own.
Also they’d love it if AI agents had the right to vote.
It actually seems like a reasonable (and unsurprising) take. Obviously if something is conscious, it should have rights.
That’s separate from whether current AI models have consciousness, or even the potential for consciousness, which they don’t, and that’s essentially what Suleyman is saying.
You can argue that the fact that he’s lending any credence at all to the idea is itself hype, but – loathe as I am to credit Microsoft – it seems like they’re really not on this particular train, and he’s just working within the Overton window that’s been set up by Anthropic and OpenAI’s complete disregard for truth and sanity.
The reason he wants them to have rights so they can take responsibility and liability for their failures, rather than the company that makes and operates them
reminder microsoft helped israel genocide palestinians
At this point it’s easier to name the megacorps that haven’t.
I stopped caring at “Microsoft AI CEO” tbh
Agents are getting rights much more quickly than animals…
Dear sir, it is with my duty to inform you that I shall henceforth be downvoting any and all articles with the words “CEO says” in the title.
Why not simply filter them, then? Because I have a vote on this matter, and it’s in the downward direction.
Agents rights > employee rights
Microslop profited off the Palestinian Genocide, they care more about this broken crap over human beings.
He says that while Microsoft doesn‘t even grant some people basic human rights by the way.
