You're talking about strong general AI, which doesn't exist, nor is it a problem worth discussing at this level currently.

If we're going to regulate any form of AI I believe strong AI is the only one worthy of such attention. Everything else will simply be called technology as soon as it works and then it is just 'mere algorithms'.

i disagree. for instance, algorithms and heuristics that are used in screening candidates should be subject to fair hiring laws (even if only indirectly, as a result of the existing legal framework). algorithms and heuristics for dealing with personally identifiable info in e.g. financial and medical settings should not allow an end-run around personal privacy regulations. neither of these examples is even close to being "strong AI". they're "mere algorithms". but they should certainly be the subject of regulatory scrutiny, IMO.

i do, however, agree that if strong AI is achievable, there are a whole other set of ethical considerations that come into play, namely the subjective experience of the AI itself, and the rights that might be entailed by possessing such a subjective experience. and i do think that strong AI is achievable, and i do think it is thoroughly plausible that it'll have subjective experience (that is the very definition of strong AI for some people). whether people will achieve that, and whether they'll achieve that in our lifetime... i dunno. but i'm definitely in the camp that says that conscious experience is a result of certain sorts of complex stimulus and information processing, and i don't think humans, or animals on earth, or carbon-based life, or meat computers in general have a monopoly on it.

> i disagree. for instance, algorithms and heuristics that are used in screening candidates should be subject to fair hiring laws (even if only indirectly, as a result of the existing legal framework).

But how will you even prove that an algorithm was used? What if the algorithm is executed by humans rather than by computers?

> algorithms and heuristics for dealing with personally identifiable info in e.g. financial and medical settings should not allow an end-run around personal privacy regulations.

Strongly agreed, but again: what are you going to do about it, these things are global now, and as much as I would like that genie to go back into the bottle my personal line of defense is to limit the amount of data flowing out to the absolute minimum knowing full well that no amount of legislation will keep my data safe. In fact, there is plenty of legislation to achieve the exact opposite effect.

As for part 2, probably not in our lifetime but it of course depends on the ages of the people conversing, if you're a newborn you just might see it happening.

same way you bring any hiring discrimination case: you get eyewitness testimony, you subpoena emails, you do the very squirrelly job of trying to figure out whether there was discriminatory intent, etc. if a heuristic was used that discriminates against people with the first name "rashad", but the operators of the heuristic didn't realize that, you get the company to stop using that heuristic. if they knew that's what was happening, and they were fine with it, because they thought people with the name rashad would probably be black, or muslim, or black muslims, then you penalize that company exactly as you would have if someone sent an email saying "i'm not considering the resumes of people that i think are [black|muslim|whatever protected hiring category]".

hiring discrimination regulation is already notoriously hard to enforce. that doesn't mean it's not worth trying, or that it's not worth trying to think about new threats to the goal of non-discriminatory hiring.