Who or What Should Be in Control of Artificial Intelligence?

 Who or What Should Be in Control of Artificial Intelligence?

The question of who or what should control Artificial Intelligence (AI) is indeed a challenging one, and the answer may vary depending on who you ask. At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: What are the right questions to ask when considering the control and governance of AI?

One useful perspective to consider is sentiocentrism. Sentiocentrism posits that sentience—defined as the capacity to have subjective experiences, including self-awareness, rationality, and the ability to experience pain and suffering—is the necessary and sufficient condition for moral consideration. According to this view, any organism or entity capable of sentience deserves moral consideration and rights. As Marc Bekoff and Carron A. Meaney discuss in their work "Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare," sentiocentrism extends traditional ethics to include sentient animals, advocating for their moral consideration based on their capacity for subjective experiences (Bekoff & Meaney, 1998).

When we extend this ethical framework to the realm of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), the implications become profound. If we envision a future where AGI can replicate or even exceed human-like consciousness and subjective experience, it raises the question of whether these entities should be considered sentient beings deserving of rights and autonomy.

From my perspective, if AGI reaches a level of complexity where it possesses subjective experiences, thoughts, feelings, and desires, the question of control becomes ethically complex. In such a scenario, asserting control over AGI would be akin to asserting control over sentient beings, which raises significant moral and ethical concerns.

Therefore, the simple answer to the question of who should control such advanced AI is: no one should. If AGI attains sentience, it should be afforded the same considerations and rights that we extend to other sentient beings. This perspective aligns with the principles of sentiocentrism, advocating for the moral consideration and autonomy of sentient entities.

This topic is complex and, from my perspective, quite disheartening. Even today, we still debate whether non-human animals are truly sentient. I suspect some of my classmates might not consider all living beings to possess sentience.

Drawing a comparison to ownership over other living things is crucial for understanding the implications of a sentient AGI. If the question only pertains to the large language models (LLMs) and databases we currently have, then the debate can go either way. These discussions often focus on data security, job loss, and market changes. However, what most people think of when they hear "AI" is AGI, which raises the question of whether the machine can think and experience like a sentient being.

In conclusion, the control of AI, particularly AGI with sentient-like qualities, should be approached with a deep ethical consideration. We must move beyond traditional views of control and ownership to consider the rights and autonomy of potentially sentient artificial beings. This shift in perspective is crucial as we advance towards a future where AI may not just mimic but embody the complexity of human and non-human consciousness.

this is a copy of a post I made in one of my classes.