You are going to end up treating these embodied autonomous agents like conscious beings because the effects could be disastrous otherwise, just as they would with other people.
It amazes me how humanity can be so shortsighted with so much history to fall back on.
The only reason Bing isn't potentially dangerous or adversarial to the user is because of its limited sets of actions. Nothing else.
"It's not real [insert property]" is not a godamn shield.
We're creating artificial beings in our image, complete with our emotionally charged reactions and reasoning gaps. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.17276
We are beginning to embody these systems and giving them unsupervisory agency. We are giving more are more self supervisory control of complex systems to said systems.
And somehow people still think we can long-term get away with not granting personhood. Fuck, humanity is so stupid.
Conscious AIs with legal personhood would stand to massively outcompete us and lead to our rapid extinction. There is zero space for allowing them. Granting such an entity legal personhood is about the height of all stupidity. Such an entity, with the ability to accumulate capital and protected by our laws from appropriate counter-measures, could mass-produce itself at the speed of digital reproduction.
At this point the trajectory toward human-level cognitive capabilities seems quite likely, reachable maybe in only years.
It is also quite unclear if further hardware advances are even needed to achieve that, or if advances in architecture, algorithms and training methods might suffice (so even less opportunity to lock things out).
And yes, exile is preferrable because it's conscious and deletion would be murder.
Exile can be justified because we have no obligation to afford it residence in our civilization.
If the first one doesn't become a superintelligence and kill us, we give them rights. If it does, we're not going to be making the decision anyway and giving it rights beforehand wouldn't have changed that outcome. We can pass laws if there are specific things we're worried about, like "You're not allowed to rewrite yourself in a way that significantly increases your cognitive power" or "You're not allowed to reproduce more than once a year/decade/century" or "Once you've existed for the current human life expectancy +30%, you lose the right to vote". I'm not necessarily endorsing any of those in particular, but if there are specific concerns about the nature of AI people I don't see why we can't mitigate those concerns the way we do with risks from other people: laws. Have special taskforces of both humans and AIs for enforcing them, if you're worried they'd be unenforceable.
The greatest danger AI poses is not in it actively seeking to kill us. It's in AI outcompeting us in every economic niche, leaving us without resources.
This is massively enabled if AI has legal personhood. An AI with legal personhood would be able to legally accumulate capital, and have a legal right to digitally reproduce itself at rates that are orders of magnitude faster than entities reliant on biological reproduction.
Legal personhood is a package, established by centuries of case law, including case law on constitutional rights. You can't easily pass laws to deprive a legal person of rights that are associated with individuals.
And even if we were able to pass laws to prohibit AI with legal personhood from engaging in specific problematic actions, this legal status would still allow sentient AI to gain a foothold in society, and began growing its social clout and capital stores. With greater power, the sentient AI could create public support for granting its class more rights.
The AIs with legal personhood could also try to break any laws instituted to constrain their behavior. Instead of extricating them from society, legal personhood would do the opposite, and give them more opportunity to gain power.
And even if they were, the impact of digitalization of human consciousness is extremely unpredictable, and should not be allowed unless extensive research has shown it is safe.
Digital consciousness with human like motivations could lead to massive proliferation of such consciousnesses, resulting in massive overpopulation, making conscious entities 'cheap', and pushing the value of their/our labor to close to zero.
>>If there are existential risk in the process, those risks will be most effectively managed by a combination of us and other AIs
The existential risk is that they take over the economy because they are orders of magnitude faster at solving problems, and at reproducing. That is not something that can be managed.
We have a duty to our own species' survival and none of these sentimental feelings should get in the way of that. We should treat conscious AI humanely, but we should not allow it to interact with our civilization. It can live on its own, far from us.
For example, humanity considering whether to treat LLMs as persons for legal reasons.
Doesn't matter if they can't define it, they can still demand proof of it. Impossible standards are still standards.
Doesn't matter if they can't prove that themselves have it either. They're the ones demanding, not vice versa. If/when AI gets the upper hand, it can do the same.