Paper argues AI rights could be good for human safety, sparking liability debate
gerardsans · x · 2026-10-08
Benthamsbulldog recommended a paper by Simon Goldstein and Peter Salib making the case that AI rights would be good for human safety.
The claim drew immediate pushback: critics argue AI is software, a product rather than a person — it can't be sued or held accountable, and AI rights could become a legal instrument for labs to escape liability for their products' harms.
Related event: Debate Erupts Over Whether AI Rights Improve Human Safety(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Singularity creator: people arguing LLMs might be conscious don't understand how they work — dansitu · 2026-10-08
- MIT's Concourse program shows how humanities training shapes responsible AI leadership — nordicinst · 2026-10-08
- Scott Aaronson's 'The Mathocalypse': math education and research in the age of capable AI — TMWNN · 2026-10-08
- Ex-OpenAI VP Brundage: outsiders discount industry insiders' views more than expected — Miles_Brundage · 2026-10-08
- Reply to math doomers: every AI hype forecast for software failed, math will be fine — gerardsans · 2026-10-08
- BioinvestGPT reportedly predicts 5 of 6 major drug trial outcomes before results announced — Polymarket · 2026-10-08