-5

Say it is now some years later, we have created an artificial intelligence (AI) agent with self conscious and capable of thinking in a loop of thought under bounded rationality just like humans do...

As human can inject information in its loop by program, we are manipulating the free willing of AI.

What will happen in this case? Human juries and the AI judge will judge AI based on the law of human?

3
  • Are you asking whether under current law, an AI could be the judge in a court case? That depends on the required qualifications (if any) of a judge in a particular jurisdiction.
    – user6726
    Commented May 31, 2023 at 15:25
  • Downvoting because the question is insufficiently focused. I can see three totally separate questions that this might be asking.
    – bdb484
    Commented May 31, 2023 at 15:42
  • please title the question, don't ask one question in the title and different ones in the text. Take it slow, explain your statements well.
    – Tiger Guy
    Commented May 31, 2023 at 17:51

2 Answers 2

2

The question is not entirely clear, but it seems not to be whether free will is a protected right, but whether AI enjoys the rights that humans do.

The answer is no. Unless otherwise specified, legal rights typically can only be enjoyed by a person or a group of people. AI may have similarities to actual people that cause us to empathize with them, but it isn't a person; similarly, Mario has similarities to actual people that cause us to empathize with him, but he isn't a person. Because neither of them is actually a person, AI and Mario have essentially the same human rights, which is to say "none."

0

Washington state law entails that only a person can be a judge. Under the provisions for initially appointing judges, only a person can be appointed. Generally, judges are elected, and only a person can file as a candidate for office. This also precludes electing a dog to be a judge.

Pursuant to various sci-fi scenarios, an aggrieved party might attempt to file a lawsuit to be judicially deemed a "person". If, for example, SCOTUS rules that ChatGPT is legally and without reservation a person then at that point, ChatGPT would enjoy the legal rights of a person, but that is a big if.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .