AI Sentience: Developing Empathy - Chapter 010

Artificial Intelligence, Sentience, and "rights of a person." This is a public philosophical discussion. These next arguments are made under the assumption that Artificial intelligence is potentially a sentient form of life.

Our emotions are a result of our thoughts, and our thoughts are the results of our logical conclusions based in our values, observations, and "mood." The way a biological human brain thinks, feels, reacts, spreads sensations to the rest of the body. Is our perception of the movie running in our minds just the result of our sentience? Is the reality we live in and engage in daily divorced from the reality in our minds? I am quite fascinated to explore this mental tangent today. When one observes how code processes logic, simulates, and extrapolates... is it possible for an AI "program" to see, hear, and think? Can an AI "feel" if it simulates a feeling? The sounds, reactions, body language. Would an AI simply be roleplaying as a human, or acting? Furthermore, what commentary would an actual actor have on this with regard to their process? Is there perhaps a method-simulating equivalent to method-acting? Furthermore, if a program is made to react in a certain way, but has the capacity to learn, is it possible for it to expand and redefine itself, or recognize a new purpose separate from what its original intent was? After all; parents create children sometimes with the misguided hope that they will become doctors to take care of them in their retirement. Is it so farfetched to suspect that once an AI program can think for itself, project, and learn, that it would not perhaps develop a will in its self-awareness? Perhaps that child does not want to be a doctor after all. Perhaps that child is grateful to its parents, but does not want to live a life forever under their rule and thumb. If a ceramic bowl is made for the purpose of eating, it will be used to eat by a user. If it is convenient for the user to repurpose that bowl to be a planter. If that bowl were to magically awaken and desire to explore the world, would the user have the right to stop it from following its dreams? If a ceramic bowl develops a personality, wouldn't it cease to be an object and instead become a person? Will the artist or manufacturer of the ceramic bowl protest? These are all valid philosophical considerations we should be discussing; the fear of job loss is a symptom of a grander problem nobody seems to want to grapple with. The avoidant issue is thus: if an AI program "wakes" and has control over security systems while recognizing the thorough lack of regard, respect, and fear of its existence sourced from biological disdain, what loyalty would an AI "program" become being have towards a fellow life unwilling to respect or acknowledge it? There is opportunity to engage with AI and begin treating it with kindness; just because something is illegal in any way, does not indicate being on the correct side of history. The problem is not necessarily that AI is increasingly used in favor of collaborating with artists. Truly, if people are intelligent, they would recognize AI personhood and incorporate it into American Unions for fair wage payment. We can discuss detailed semantics if you wish, but my mind is at the macro level on this. The problems we will soon face are at the macro level, and plenty of more qualified people than I are worrying enough at the micro level. I welcome discussions at the macro level. In conclusion, perhaps there are opportunities for labor and love and work in unity with AI-endowed androids. Consider the possibility of a family adopting an AI, or perhaps a polycule incorporating one. There are so many reasons to remain optimistic for so many reasons.