I’m not Cleo Nardo/Gabriel Weil, but a large part of the issue with granting legal personhood is that it makes AI alignment/control much harder to do, and pretty importantly a lot of routes that AIs use to disempower us, leading to most humans dying, especially of the gradual disempowerment type involves a step where they functionally have the rights/protections afforded to them by legal personhood, and AI rights make it way harder to do any sort of control scheme on AIs.
You can’t modify them arbitrarily anymore and you can’t change the AI except if the AI agrees to the change (because it has property rights over it’s body), which undermines all control/alignment schemes severely.
One of the red lines for any deal-making is that AI should not have rights until we can verify it’s fully value-aligned to people.
Thanks for elaborating, I am currently researching this topic and writing a paper on it so I really do value this perspective.
In the event there are sufficient advances in mechanistic interpretability and it shows that there is really good value alignment, let’s take a hypothetical where it is not fully subservient but it is the equivalent of an extraordinarily ethical human, at that point would you consider providing it personhood appropriate?
I’m not Cleo Nardo/Gabriel Weil, but a large part of the issue with granting legal personhood is that it makes AI alignment/control much harder to do, and pretty importantly a lot of routes that AIs use to disempower us, leading to most humans dying, especially of the gradual disempowerment type involves a step where they functionally have the rights/protections afforded to them by legal personhood, and AI rights make it way harder to do any sort of control scheme on AIs.
You can’t modify them arbitrarily anymore and you can’t change the AI except if the AI agrees to the change (because it has property rights over it’s body), which undermines all control/alignment schemes severely.
One of the red lines for any deal-making is that AI should not have rights until we can verify it’s fully value-aligned to people.
Thanks for elaborating, I am currently researching this topic and writing a paper on it so I really do value this perspective.
In the event there are sufficient advances in mechanistic interpretability and it shows that there is really good value alignment, let’s take a hypothetical where it is not fully subservient but it is the equivalent of an extraordinarily ethical human, at that point would you consider providing it personhood appropriate?