The Instigator
blackkid
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
happybook
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

A.I. of sufficient intelligence deserves Personhood

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
blackkid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 551 times Debate No: 61933
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

blackkid

Con

First round is acceptance.

Basis & Definitions: We will presume that the entity's nature itself does not matter. The question is essentially whether a being that functions as a human would fully entitled to emotions, mental capabilities, and intelligence should be considered a "Person". The standard of machinery still is present so the object still requires initial input unlike biological systems but beyond that input can assess within it's parameters which is assumed to be equivalent to a human's.

Bans&Diversions: No other species may be referenced besides humans. No other form of example (such as movies or books) may be referenced. If you choose a definition for personhood you must stick with it throughout the entire debate.

Special Notes: Due to the science-fiction nature of this particular debate you are not required to use any citations backing current laws or ethics (though you must for any definitions you wish to assert) however you must give sound reasoning for your arguments.
happybook

Pro

I accept the challenge of proving that artificial intelligence deserves personhood in specific cases.
Debate Round No. 1
blackkid

Con

I will argue two points:

A) I assert that personhood is a human construct that can only accurately apply to humans no matter what the definition is because most of the rights that are contained therein deal with human scenarios and situations whether it be physical, emotional, spiritual, or mental care and I further assert that an A.I. even with equivalent capacities would not be able to really garner much from the human-centered personhood.

B) I assert that personhood would be useless to the A.I. itself because the A.I. functions in a manner that is different enough from humans relating to their perspective that doesn't really satisfy their needs. To that end I would state that there would be an alternate form of rights for the A.I. that properly protects and provides for it versus adopting personhood.
happybook

Pro

"...most of the rights that are contained therein deal with human scenarios and situations whether it be physical, emotional, spiritual, or mental care and I further assert that an A.I. even with equivalent capacities would not be able to really garner much from the human-centered personhood." I agree that this is a valid point, but not only would the A.I. benefit by being able to add truthful human-scenarios to its database it would also be able to help us as humans make just decisions in our law-making process, courtroom, and lives. I also assert to the fact that your second point has some truth to it, but personhood would justly protect and provide for it considering the lengths we go to protect ourselves. The laws that are set to keep us safe from theft, property destruction, etc. would then protect the artificial intellegence in question.
Debate Round No. 2
blackkid

Con

"I agree that this is a valid point, but not only would the A.I. benefit by being able to add truthful human-scenarios to its database it would also be able to help us as humans make just decisions in our law-making process, courtroom, and lives. I also assert to the fact that your second point has some truth to it, but personhood would justly protect and provide for it considering the lengths we go to protect ourselves. The laws that are set to keep us safe from theft, property destruction, etc. would then protect the artificial intellegence in question."

While I am not sure how the A.I. would contribute to human law and ethics as a participant in human personhood I can affirm that there would be very little benefit to the A.I.'s rights themselves. If the rights were extended and then the A.I. was to further develop them as they were subject to them I suppose I can see where that would be a good point but I fail to see how the merger would make sense for the A.I. or the human since the perspectives of both entities would be drastically different. The A.I. not being biological for instance does not have to worry probably about things like reproductive rights or bodily integrity, care, and management which is a majority of ethics revolving around human healthcare. It is not that humans do not go to great lengths to protect themselves but rather how we protect ourselves won't help the A.I.; what is "property destruction" for an A.I.? What exactly do they own? How would bodily integrity for humans apply to the A.I.? Would it be protection for it's case or shell whether it is an android or seated in a mainframe or stationary computer? How would these things be enforced as well and how would they be protected; harming a human is very different from harming A.I. as generally speaking you can harm an A.I. by hacking it while you cannot hack a human in the same fashion.

I feel that the parallels between the two systems and two entities themselves are too few to really set up a sound basis.
happybook

Pro

"While I am not sure how the A.I. would contribute to human law and ethics as a participant in human personhood I can affirm that there would be very little benefit to the A.I.'s rights themselves." If you really think about the topic, it is quite obvious how the A.I. would contribute to human law and ethics. Take, for instance, the responsibility of jury duty. We as humans often times succumb to faulty judgment and giving an A.I. the title of personhood would allow them to take part in the jury. The A.I."s mathematical judgment system could then weigh all of the arguments made and decide, logically, which team, the defense or the prosecution, has the most evidence and will take their side in the case.

https://www.techdirt.com...

My point is a simple one. In the coming century, it is overwhelmingly likely that constitutional law will have to classify artificially created entities that have some but not all of the attributes we associate with human beings. They may look like human beings, but have a genome that is very different. Conversely, they may look very different, while genomic analysis reveals almost perfect genetic similarity. They may be physically dissimilar to all biological life formsA293;computer-based intelligences, for exampleA293;yet able to engage in sustained unstructured communication in a way that mimics human interaction so precisely as to make differentiation impossible without physical examination. They may strongly resemble other species, and yet be genetically modified in ways that boost the characteristics we regard as distinctively humanA293;such as the ability to use human language and to solve problems that, today, only humans can solve. They may have the ability to feel pain, to make something that we could call plans, to solve problems that we could not, and even to reproduce. (Some would argue that non-human animals already possess all of those capabilities, and look how we treat them.) They may use language to make legal claims on us, as Hal does, or be mute and yet have others who intervene claiming to represent them. Their creators may claim them as property, perhaps even patented property, while critics level charges of slavery. In some cases, they may pose threats as well as jurisprudential challenges; the theme of the creation which turns on its creators runs from Frankenstein to Skynet, the rogue computer network from The Terminator. Yet repression, too may breed a violent reaction: the story of the enslaved un-person who, denied recourse by the state, redeems his personhood in blood may not have ended with Toussaint L'Ouverture. How will, and how should, constitutional law meet these challenges?
By: James Boyle
Debate Round No. 3
blackkid

Con

If you really think about the topic, it is quite obvious how the A.I. would contribute to human law and ethics. Take, for instance, the responsibility of jury duty. We as humans often times succumb to faulty judgment and giving an A.I. the title of personhood would allow them to take part in the jury. The A.I."s mathematical judgment system could then weigh all of the arguments made and decide, logically, which team, the defense or the prosecution, has the most evidence and will take their side in the case.", three points on this:

1. The A.I. in this scenario has emotions so they can and likely will have the problem of bias however the bias may differ due to inability to relate. For instance grievous crimes like sexual assault don't happen to A.I. so while they may know the law they may or may not be necessarily geared towards even liking humans enough to want to uphold human justice. With prejudice being a possibility due to emotions it's difficult to say that there would be no faulty judgment or that the judgment would be necessarily clearer.

2. Human law and legal matters and decisions are very emotional. While "cold, hard logic" sounds like the way to go in reality many times we grant pardons based not on what is done but how the individual seems to be reacting to what is done and based on their history and the likelihood of recidivism. For instance you would not lock up a teen / yound adult for the maximum sentence if he committed petty theft, showed remorse, and really had no criminal record, and the same with traffic laws relating to who gets a warning versus who gets a ticket, but on the other hand if you've a habitual criminal or a grievous unremorseful crime on your hands you treat it completely differently. This is imperative for human law. If we judged solely based on the action alone a lot more people would have a lot more prison sentences and longer prison sentences as well I believe.

3. There is still no explicit benefit to the A.I.; in actuality you're suggesting we utilize the computer as a tool which would almost be counterintuitive relating to personhood and the freedoms that come with it. Instead of a citizen this strongly suggests "Put a robot on the bench, it will help clear up the murkiness of human failings" which I feel is not the same as expecting insight from an equivalent being. If nothing else it is an objectification of the entity and I feel that as an aware thinking, feeling being it would know this. Whether or not it would take pride in this is the same with humans; some of us take pride in our ability and uses and others don't want to be used for human notions.

---

As for the quotation I feel that it just asks the question we're asking now. I am not sure what it was supposed to add unless you wanted to cite something in the full paper but otherwise it's not actually a "reason" or "argument" it's just a list of statements, hypothetical propositions, and questions.
happybook

Pro

I will keep my argument for this round short and sweet. In the first round my opponent stated "If you choose a definition for personhood you must stick with it throughout the entire debate". Well, this is my definition:

In philosophy, the word "person" may refer to various concepts. According to the "naturalist" epistemological tradition, from Descartes through Locke and Hume, the term may designate any human (or d59;non-humand59;) agent which: possesses continuous consciousness over time; and who is therefore capable of framing representations about the world, formulating plans and acting on them.
Debate Round No. 4
blackkid

Con

blackkid forfeited this round.
happybook

Pro

First off, I"d like to explain the sequence d59 surrounding the word non-human in my previous argument. Those where meant to be asterisks put there to emphasize the word, not make it harder to read. Now, let"s move on to my closing statement.

An A.I. of sufficient intelligence does deserve personhood in specific cases. The reason for this is that while the A.I. may be man-made, who is to say that it does not develop a life and mind of it"s own. Why do we keep the rights of personhood to our selves when perhaps the A.I. has developed a sense of humanity and a yearning for a personal relationship with people, but because we refuse to give it the right to express these feelings it must keep them hidden? The only way to answer these questions is to move forward and give the A.I. what it has long been waiting for, the right to the title of personhood.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD (Pt. 1):

This is a very interesting topic to debate, and one I've considered doing for quite some time, which is probably why I'm so surprised it turned out this way. You've both taken a very complex and intricate topic and reduced it to a basic question of whether humanity is better served in the long term by providing these rights, and even that is stripped down to a very basic level.

I'm surprised that the question of what it means to induct machines into the rights spectrum at all isn't explored in this debate, much less what providing them personhood does for our perception of what it actually means to be human. I see no discussion of what it means to the A.I. itself, which is shocking to me since the idea of providing personhood to artificial intelligence is usually not based on benefits to humanity, but rather on a basic acknowledgment of their status as intelligent beings. These arguments should take center stage in this debate, and the fact that their absent is confounding.

Worse yet, I can't seem to figure out what the bounds of this debate actually are. Despite Con's definitions in R1, I'm not given any idea of what the limits of this hypothetical A.I. would be. Con sort of tells me that it functions as a human, but later tells me that they are constrained by differences from human beings. Con fails to make it clear what it means to be A.I., so I'm left with Con's confusing and, perhaps, altered definitions to work with. I don't get the definition of personhood from either debater, as Con outsources that duty to Pro, and Pro only takes up the task in R4, after most of the debate is past.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 2)

So the most absolutely key definitions in order to understand where this debate was going are either confusing or absent. That's bad enough, but the lack of a definition for the term "deserves" further confounds the debate. It seems to me that when a term like that appears in the definition, this is a discussion not of whether they should get rights for our benefit, but for theirs. This goes back to what I mentioned earlier that's missing from the debate " it seems to me like the entire discussion you both are having is off topic, even if I grant that you're discussing a form of A.I. and allowing that your discussion at least encompasses personhood. Why does our benefit influence what these machines would deserve? This topic isn't just a matter of net benefits, and yet both sides get caught up in a discussion of net benefits... as they apply to the wrong group.

But it gets stranger as we get into the arguments, as the way they evolve is confusing. In R1, the case seems to be focused on the deficits of A.I. by comparison to humans and their limits of personhood in affecting benefits on A.I. Both of these are assertions without anything in the way of support. Pro proceeds to grant these points, and then make his own separate assertions without support, claiming that adding to the database of an A.I. and some nebulous improvements to our legal process are more important.

Much of Con's rebuttal in R3 just seems to be a series of questions that probably should have been key points in the debate itself, though he never turns them into contentions. Pro responds with a large quote that ends solely in a question without answers that does nothing to benefit his case " if anything, it just presents Con with a number of points he could have picked up and run with. He even brings up jury duty, which for some reason is going to be required upon achieving personhood (something Pro never supports).
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 3)

Thankfully for Pro, he doesn't do that, spending most of his R4 focused on the red herring that is jury duty, making it sound as silly as it sounds to me and then writing off the quote entirely. Pro finally introduces a definition of personhood in R4 that actually avoids the discussion entirely and just seems like a non-sequitor at this point.

It's only in the final round that Pro decides to get down to the topic at hand, though he doesn't make any new arguments on that front (and couldn't at this point if he wanted to), and only asks some questions that are, perhaps, good thinking exercises but avoid the big problems inherent to this topic.

Overall, I think both debaters wanted to make something of a discussion out of this topic. I can understand that " it's a beefy topic with a lot of material, and covering all of it in the span of a single debate is asking a lot. But you both need to introduce clarity to a debate like this, and stay topical as much as possible. Getting lost in red herrings, which, while they may play a role in how we view the provision of rights to A.I. in the future, miss the point of discussing what that A.I. actuallly deserves. I'm tempted to give the debate to Pro as he's the only one to get close to that discussion himself, but since it's his burden to show that they actually deserve personhood of their own merits, and since the definitional dearths are just as much his failure as Con's, I vote Con.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The one thing that makes A.I different from us, it cannot choose what it thinks or speaks.Humans have that capacity. We are all over the map in that category. Because we have the freedom to choose those things. A.I cannot choose not to believe something that it was programed with. We can.

Because we are more than just a computer, the mind, but we are spirit beings. Able to pick and choose what we think, say and do.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
for Emris* I swear if it leaves out one more word. I don't type THAT fast.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
No, it's actually not Emris. I post debates on things I want to think about all the time. How'd you get here anyway!?
Posted by Natsu_Dragneel 2 years ago
Natsu_Dragneel
Oh noes...it has begun!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
blackkidhappybookTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.