If not what percentage of a human brain would need to be simulated to grant such human rights. If said brain was made made artificially and thus was never born is it still human? If we can simulate an AI of simmillar size to a human brain I assume thats not considered a human but if u put that into a body that can take a breath (I believe this is the legal definition of a human at least in australia jurisdiction). What’s an actual lawers opinion on this?
PS this is purly hypothetical I was talking to a lawyer friend and found legally its an interesting hypothetical. Whats ur take on this from ur legal POV.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8#:~:text=In determining the meaning of,at any stage of development
It seems that US law does have human biology baked into personhood. I believe some countries have granted or have actual movements for some human rights to extend to non human species (ie primates).
As for the politics of what happens next:
If someone did create a sentient AI like Data from Star Trek it would likely face an immense uphill battle to have any recognized rights, beyond being the property of the creators.
If thus AI did not have a body and charm, the battle for legal recognition would be even starker.
People fear skynet. People fear recognizing the intelligence of animals. I don’t think the wheels of public opinion or law would adapt quickly to any new information about a truly human like artificial intelligence.
Wow thats very interesting. I guess my make take of this is even if the simulated intelligence was identical to that of a real human that was once or still is alive with that consciousness continuation has no rights. You knew exactly where this train of thought was going tho in regards to ai.