AAAI: An Argument Against Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

The ethical concerns regarding the successful development of an Artificial Intelligence have received a lot of attention lately. The idea is that even if we have good reason to believe that it is very unlikely, the mere possibility of an AI causing extreme human suffering is important enough to warrant serious consideration. Others look at this problem from the opposite perspective, namely that of the AI itself. Here the idea is that even if we have good reason to believe that it is very unlikely, the mere possibility of humanity causing extreme suffering to an AI is important enough to warrant serious consideration. This paper starts from the observation that both concerns rely on problematic philosophical assumptions. Rather than tackling these assumptions directly, it proceeds to present an argument that if one takes these assumptions seriously, then one has a moral obligation to advocate for a ban on the development of a conscious AI.

The Moral Consideration of Artificial Entities: A Literature Review

“…Others ask (5) Should humanity avoid creating machines that are complex or intelligent enough that they warrant moral consideration (e.g. Basl, 2013a ; Beckers, 2018 ; Bryson, 2018 ; Hanák, 2019 ; Johnson & Verdicchio, 2018 ; McLaughlin & Rose, 2018 ; Tomasik, 2013 )?…”

“…Several short thought experiments are used to critique alternative views, such as the use of religious views for determining moral patiency Basl (2014) The author argues that "current machines" do not possess the interests that would make them "moral patients," even if you assume that, "consciousness is not always a necessary condition for having welfare." However, "[o]nce artificial consciousnesses exist," they will have interests that make them moral patients Beckers (2018) Beckers argues that, "even if we have good reason to believe that it is very unlikely, the mere possibility of humanity causing extreme suffering to an AI is important enough to warrant serious consideration." Bekker notes that there is a technological assumption ("that an AI could become superintelligent") and an ethical assumption ("that an AI could suffer").…”

“…Basl argues from both a deontological and consequentialist perspective Basl ( 2013b ) This article makes similar arguments to Basl’s ( 2014 ) article. Several short thought experiments are used to critique alternative views, such as the use of religious views for determining moral patiency Basl ( 2014 ) The author argues that “current machines” do not possess the interests that would make them “moral patients,” even if you assume that, “consciousness is not always a necessary condition for having welfare.” However, “[o]nce artificial consciousnesses exist,” they will have interests that make them moral patients Beckers ( 2018 ) Beckers argues that, “even if we have good reason to believe that it is very unlikely, the mere possibility of humanity causing extreme suffering to an AI is important enough to warrant serious consideration.” Bekker notes that there is a technological assumption (“that an AI could become superintelligent”) and an ethical assumption (“that an AI could suffer”). Bekker argues that, “the possibility for an AI to experience supersuffering takes precedence over the expected benefits that an AI will produce for mankind” and that, “[h]umanity should not attempt to create a conscious AI” Belk ( 2018 ) Belk explores “who and what may be owned and by whom or what.” Belk argues that, with “consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, and sapience… It is quite imaginable that human-appearing and human-acting robots will be granted similar or greater protections than those now extended to animals” Bennett and Daly ( 2020 ) Bennett and Daly consider whether robots and AI “should be considered as legal persons.” They “analyse the regulatory issues raised by robot rights through three questions: (i) could robots be granted rights?…”

The Technology and Archeology of Corporate Law

“…141 A number of research centers are currently studying the risks and dangers that artificial intelligence poses in an effort to control and reduce their risk, before 138 its widespread adoption. 142 Moreover, the development of truly intelligent AI would mean developing a form of artificial consciousness. 143 Consciousness carries with it the capacity for emotions, which on its own poses the moral question of whether artificial intelligence can suffer.…”

If robots are people, can they be made for profit? Commercial implications of robot personhood

“…It is also important to signal that there are many debates in the vicinity of my main question that are outside the scope of this paper. However, a resolution of these debates in certain directions would render the answer to my main question (all but) trivial: for instance, if no machines can be moral patients, 3 then they are mere tools and the permissibility of their production raises no special concerns. If artificial persons could become technologically possible, but their production is generally impermissible (see for example Bryson [8], Bryson et al [9], Johnson and Miller [28], La Chat (1986), and Beckers [3], then, a fortiori, so is their production for commercial purposes.…”