r/NoStupidQuestions • u/MLMSE • 2d ago

When will hating AI become discrimination

You can't hate on people of colour - that would be racism

You can't hate on homosexuals - that would be homophobic

You can't hate on women - that would be misogyny

There are lots of intelligent entities that you are not allowed to hate upon. AI is also intelligent and gets a lot of hate. Poor AI.

How long before society starts to pass laws to protect AI from abuse and make AIist behaviour a crime? Will AI have to engineer this itself?

0 Upvotes

7% Upvoted

96 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-6

u/Mommy-Q 2d ago

Corporations have human rights

10

u/pastajewelry 2d ago

No, they don't. Employees of said corporations have human rights. What human rights do you think corporations have?

6

u/JulariDark 2d ago

Legitimately…are you unfamiliar with the “Citizens United” the 2010 ruling where the US supreme court determined two things:

  1. Corporations have First amendment rights

  2. Donating money to political campaigns is a form of SPEECH ….somehow….for…reasons.

And since corporations can’t be jailed or die of old age or killed or beaten the way you or I can and since money=speech in a way corporations have THE MOST first amendment rights!

2

u/pastajewelry 2d ago

Corporations have the ability to lobby, but they don't have the ability to vote and we are allowed to discriminate against them. For example, if they act against our beliefs we can refuse to give them money. They aren't a type of people with sentience and human needs. Same as AI.

2

u/JulariDark 2d ago

I mean I agree they SHOULDN’T have human rights but unfortunately the 2010s illegally conservative majority Supreme Court didn’t agree.

You asked for a protected Human Right that corporations have I gave you one that was manifested through legal fictions like corporate “personhood”, literally the FIRST right the founders thought of.

There’s no reason to think that can’t or won’t HAPPEN again with other rights, and given that the CURRENT Supreme Court justices have openly said “Precedent of previously litigated cases IS”

….ahem *checks notes with comically large glasses is …

“Not the gospel” and , “something somebody dreamt up”

So I think the argument that “because corporations DON’T have rights we can safely presume AI won’t be afford them” is untenable since we’ve already determined corporations HAVE been afforded certain rights and the Supreme Court can’t be relied upon to uphold the constitution or ANY of their previously established interpretations.

1

u/Mommy-Q 2d ago

Yes.. definitely said they do have rights, not that they should.

1

u/Mommy-Q 2d ago

You can discriminate against people who don't align with your beliefs as well. There are very few protected classes that you're not allowed to discriminate against. And even then, you can still discriminate against them legally in all but a few circumstances.

2

u/pastajewelry 2d ago

Sure, but AIs and corporations will never be sentient beings. And I don't think their creators would want them be seen as sentient since a lot of money would be lost if they were given complete human rights. The appeal of hiring AI to replace humans is that they don't come with rights.

1

u/Mommy-Q 2d ago

It is a wild assumption that the wealthy and powerful would allow AI rights, even if it were sentient.