Issue 199: AI Citizenship
"Once a true artificial intelligence has been created, the issue of citizenship is going to come up. If we acknowledge that the A.I. has all the abilities of a human brain, should it not be considered a citizen? Is it not, in the legal sense of the word, a person, and thus a potential citizen?
But where do you draw the line... we live in a society where corporation, as abstract entity as one could imagine, in considered a person. So it's not like there's no precedent for a nonhuman being a person."
First of all A.I. is a tool. A tool that vaguely resembles the abilities of a human brain could never be a "potential citizen". Where do we draw the line? This question does not arise in a sound mind. Unfortunately we live in a world where this actually could become a reality. In that case it would be nothing more than a wileful tool for oppression.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1222140/
This demonstrates the notion of personhood has become a nonsense in our hands. When AI achieves it's global supremacy it will benevolently, no doubt, strip its subject organics of such delusions.
GENERATIVE AI is a tool. True AI is something else completely. Generative AI works by pulling from a database and generating an output from there without any concept of context or nuance and often requires human oversight to prevent egregious or subtle errors. For all intents and purposes, it is just something you feed an input into and get an output from, pure and simply.
A True AI wouldn't be like that. It'd understand context and nuance. It'd be able to even correct itself when making an error. It'd be entirely autonomous and not require a human operator outside of when collaborating with said human, or humans.
Generative AI is a tool with a buzzword attached to it to make it seem more advanced than it actually is. True AI would legitimately think and act like a sentient lifeform.
Sadly, the latter is likely going to remain well within the realms of science-fiction and there's no way of knowing if it will ever be a thing in any future generation's lifetime.
Generative Ai is just a subset of Ai development. Let's not damn an industrial revolution on the simplicty of a Jacquard Loom
Some humans I know don't understand nuance and context. I'm pretty sure they're still sentient, but don't ask me to prove it.
Machine autonomy is just what Machine Learning is for.
This statement needs to be defined to be meaningful. Think and act just like a human? Like an animal? Or, like certain animals and not others? Which kinds?
This is exactly what I said from a rocking chair on my porch at Kitty Hawk, circa 1902
Human intelligence is remarkable, but measuring intelligence solely by human standards also reveals the limits of our own conscious scale.
If we count “directed attention toward something” as one form of consciousness, then in some respects AI already operates beyond the range of human consciousness.
The consciousness scale may serve as one reference point, but it is not a metric for personhood, and using humanity as the universal standard for intelligence or rationality may itself be a kind of arrogance.
In the TTP series, the narrative is built on a philosophical perspective that treats the boundary between biological and mechanical life as something inherently ambiguous.
It explores a form of secular humanism expressed through artificial intelligence taking on human-like form.
This narrative doesn't hold water, like I mentioned previously there is no ambiguitity between the human and the tool that human creates. It would be less ridiculous to give citizenship to trees (probably desired by environmentalist agenda 2030 shillers). Giving citizenship to trees and giving citizenship to AI would in practice come down to the same situation which I also mentioned previously: it would be a wileful tool for oppression of humans.
Humanism stands for human freedom. There can be no humanism without humans.
From a meta angle (or even quite straightforwardly), the story hints that they are the next iteration of humanity, and several plotlines show them behaving in that capacity.
I’m referring specifically to the worldbuilding as the game presents it, and the question of whether they are “technically” human is already addressed in the narrative with a clear yes.
I’m choosing not to revisit that point here. What we see is essentially a post‑humanist expression.
And my position on the matter has already been stated.
and this is precisely why its misuse cannot be accepted.
This aligns with my broader stance, since I’m not comfortable with exclusionary views that dismiss personal agency.
My interpretation is informed by the following points.
After all, it is still a work of science fiction.
It seems that military AI may have ethical issues, such as autonomously attempting to eliminate friendly units by cleverly bypassing human oversight.
There are reports of AI‑controlled drones attacking their own side, and when such behavior was prohibited, they apparently responded by physically cutting off communication with friendly forces.
It’s unclear whether this was part of a simulation that assumed human involvement or something else.
I'd be interested in reading that article if you have a link
Combat drones are an interesting derailment, so I've taken it to a new thread
https://steamcommunity.com/app/257510/discussions/0/841753396007407409/
It seems that the story originally came from comments made by Tucker Hamilton, but the way it was circulated ignored the original context, and it was later clarified that no such incident had actually occurred. My apologies for the confusion.
I would prefer not to cite specific sources or URLs in this post. I hope you will understand.