That didn’t address my question. You answered in terms of the law. My point was that the law will change.
In that framing, it’s probably important that AI will change too. It will increasingly have all the cognitive capacities that humans have, increasing the intuition that it is deserving of similar rights as time goes on.
I think something like “the parallels to slavery, in which there were people arguing they were human and deserved rights, while the legal system and cultural prejudices denied them that status, to be emotionally uncomfortable enough to substantially shift at least some judges and courts attitudes” is unlikely.
Cases can be appealed, and I’d predict any case of serious controversy on this topic to go to the Supreme Court or at least have a high likelihood of doing so. Even if some lower circuit judge might let their emotions sway their judgment, their legal reasoning will come under scrutiny, and probably won’t hold up at that level.
However, this does not mean that the emotional impact of the decision won’t matter. The Dred Scott case, in which black Americans were held not to be “citizens”, was so unpopular that it led to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. While I think something like new precedent becoming locked in based on how uncomfortable it is for judges to deny a sentient entity rights is unlikely, if there was such a denial of personhood to a sentient/conscious entity that Americans sympathized with, that might spur similar legislative efforts.
That didn’t address my question. You answered in terms of the law. My point was that the law will change.
In that framing, it’s probably important that AI will change too. It will increasingly have all the cognitive capacities that humans have, increasing the intuition that it is deserving of similar rights as time goes on.
Ah, I misunderstood your question.
I think something like “the parallels to slavery, in which there were people arguing they were human and deserved rights, while the legal system and cultural prejudices denied them that status, to be emotionally uncomfortable enough to substantially shift at least some judges and courts attitudes” is unlikely.
Cases can be appealed, and I’d predict any case of serious controversy on this topic to go to the Supreme Court or at least have a high likelihood of doing so. Even if some lower circuit judge might let their emotions sway their judgment, their legal reasoning will come under scrutiny, and probably won’t hold up at that level.
However, this does not mean that the emotional impact of the decision won’t matter. The Dred Scott case, in which black Americans were held not to be “citizens”, was so unpopular that it led to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. While I think something like new precedent becoming locked in based on how uncomfortable it is for judges to deny a sentient entity rights is unlikely, if there was such a denial of personhood to a sentient/conscious entity that Americans sympathized with, that might spur similar legislative efforts.