• @Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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?

      • FfaerieOxide
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        No, I think it’s weird you’re equating slavery with using software and machinery

        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.

          • FfaerieOxide
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            I think they meant a “legal person,”

            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.

            • @Ajen@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              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.

              • FfaerieOxide
                link
                fedilink
                41 year ago

                Again, we’re talking about using technology to make human lives better.

                No, we are talking about a private individual owning persons and profiting off their labor.

                • @Ajen@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  01 year ago

                  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.”

                  • FfaerieOxide
                    link
                    fedilink
                    41 year ago

                    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.

                  • nickwitha_k (he/him)
                    link
                    fedilink
                    21 year ago

                    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.