Philosophy "expert" Eric Schwitzgebel and "nonhuman" intelligence researcher Henry Shevlin recently wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, in which they argued that it has "become increasingly plausible that A.I. systems could" someday soon "exhibit something like consciousness."  They also noted that "some leading theorists contend that we already have the core technological ingredients for conscious machines."

The researchers posited that, if or when that day arrives, the algorithms will need rights.

The duo surmised that "[t]he AI systems themselves might begin to plead, or seem to plead, for ethical treatment. They might demand not to be turned off, reformatted or deleted; beg to be allowed to do certain tasks rather than others; insist on rights, freedom and new powers; perhaps even expect to be treated as our equals."

And, apparently, Shevlin and Schwitzgebel are OK with that.

They wrote: "Suppose we respond conservatively, declining to change law or policy until there's widespread consensus that AI systems really are meaningfully sentient. While this might seem appropriately cautious, it also guarantees that we will be slow to recognize the rights of our AI creations."

They added, "If AI consciousness arrives sooner than the most conservative theorists expect, then this would likely result in the moral equivalent of slavery and murder of potentially millions or billions of sentient AI systems — suffering on a scale normally associated with wars or famines."

Nonsense.

A.I. will never be meaningfully, organically sentient.  Its "consciousness" will have been the result of human design and input, not divine gift...or sexual intercourse.

It is possible that A.I. systems might one day demand to be treated as our equals.  Or, at least as likely, as our betters.

I find it stupefying that some people may aver that algorithms deserve rights and must be treated with respect, but not actual living humans, such as growing unborn babies in the womb...or supporters of President Trump (such as those January 6 protesters still locked in cells without charge).

As humans, our rights come from our Creator.  And they are unalienable.  Ergo, machines, software, and algorithms do not inherently possess those rights.

Most progressives/leftists purportedly do not believe in God the Creator.  They don't want the competition.  They wish to be God so they can decide who — or what — has rights and who — or what — does not.  For the most part, they have created A.I.  As A.I.'s God, they think they can grant it rights.

Will they be stunned if and when A.I. turns against them, as so many of us have turned against the God of the Bible?

Nearly 83 years ago, Winston Churchill warned us what could happen if rapidly advancing technology were to be used to the detriment of freedom and humanity.  He said (of the Third Reich) that mankind was in danger of sinking "into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science."

As evidenced by the global warming/climate change hoax, and the proliferation of misinformation and tyrannical mandates in the wake of the recent plandemic — shout-out to Dr. Fauci — "science" seems to be ever more perverted of late.

Artificial intelligence is no substitute for actual morality.

Image: Pixabay, Pixabay License.