Should AI-Powered Robots Be Granted Rights in the Future?

This is a thought-provoking question.

I recently conducted a poll among my network, asking if AI-powered robots should be granted rights in the future. The results showed that 74% of respondents opposed the idea, 14% supported it, and 11% were undecided. I am among the minority who believe that AI will eventually receive some rights. In this article, I’ll share my perspective and address some common concerns raised by those who disagree. This article aims to challenge conventional thinking and encourage an open dialogue on this complex topic.

This is not a new question. In 1942, Isaac Asimov introduced the "Three Laws of Robotics" in his science fiction stories. These laws were:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Asimov envisioned a future where robots would become a key part of everyday life, making it essential to establish rules for safe and ethical interactions with humans. Today, with the rapid advancement of AI, his vision is no longer just science fiction—it has become a reality. This shift makes Asimov's ideas more relevant than ever, prompting critical questions about how to integrate AI into society while ensuring safety and ethical behavior.

When considering future scenarios, such as the one in question—should AI-powered robots be granted rights in the future?—the challenge and thought exercise is to envision what an AI-powered robot might look like in the coming years. To provide some context, the AI revolution differs from past technological revolutions in three key ways:

1. It learns continuously.
2. It makes decisions autonomously.
3. It can assume different roles beyond its original design.

No other technology in history has had these capabilities. For example, a robot designed to weld could only perform that task, albeit faster and better. Now, imagine a being that never stops learning, makes decisions on its own, and can take on any role it chooses. What could such a being become? This is the thought exercise that the question aims to explore. And should this being have some rights?

While 74% of respondents opposed the idea of granting rights, most people agree that AI should be regulated, usually thinking of regulation as a set of rules that limit what AI can and cannot do. However, many overlook that when regulations explicitly prohibit certain actions, they implicitly permit those that are not restricted—effectively granting certain rights. For example, if a law prohibits AI from driving trucks autonomously, it implicitly allows AI to drive other types of vehicles autonomously. This highlights the importance of addressing these questions today, as they are directly connected to how we design AI regulations.

It’s important to recognize that each type of entity has its own kind of rights. Granting rights to AI doesn't mean giving it the same rights as humans. Instead, AI might receive rights suited to its nature and role, such as the right to proper maintenance and updates for a specific period—say, 10 years—before being considered obsolete. This nuanced approach to rights could shape AI's future role in society.

Common Concerns Against Granting Rights to AI Robots

The overwhelming majority of those who opposed the idea of granting rights to AI-powered robots expressed concerns related to the nature of AI itself. Here are some of the most prevalent arguments:

1. Lack of Consciousness: Many respondents argued that AI lacks consciousness and self-awareness, which are often considered prerequisites for rights. Since AI cannot experience emotions, pain, or joy like humans or animals, they believe that there is no basis for granting it any form of rights. The idea of rights, in their view, is inherently tied to the capacity for subjective experiences.
2. Ethical Risks: Another common concern was the potential ethical risks associated with giving rights to AI. People worry that doing so could blur the lines between humans and machines, potentially diminishing the value placed on human rights. They fear that extending rights to AI might create a slippery slope, where the unique status of humans as rights-bearing entities is compromised.
3. Purpose-Built Machines: A significant number of respondents emphasized that AI is ultimately a human invention, created to serve specific purposes. Granting rights to an AI-powered robot could, in their view, contradict the very purpose for which these machines were designed. Many see AI as a tool—however sophisticated—and not as an entity deserving of moral or legal consideration.

While these concerns are valid and deserve careful thought, I believe it is important to look at the broader context of how rights have evolved historically, and why AI might someday challenge our current frameworks.

The Evolution of Rights: From Exclusion to Inclusion

Rights have historically been progressive, gradually evolving to include more individuals and groups over time. It is common to see opposition to certain rights initially, only for those rights to become widely accepted later. Consider the case of women's suffrage. Initially, women were excluded from the right to vote, with arguments against it often grounded in tradition and societal roles. Over time, however, as the understanding of equality and justice evolved, women’s right to vote became universal in many countries. What was once unthinkable is now a fundamental aspect of democratic societies.

This example highlights that opposition to new rights often stems from the discomfort of challenging existing norms. AI, as a fundamentally new type of entity, poses a similar challenge. While many currently oppose the idea of granting rights to AI, history suggests that such resistance can give way to new understandings of fairness and justice.

The concept of rights has evolved significantly over time. In the 16th century, a major debate arose in Europe about whether Indigenous peoples in the Americas should have rights. Many argued that these so-called "savages" did not deserve rights because they were not believed to have souls or be children of God. As a result, they were considered "non-human" and not entitled to any rights. However, this view began to change in the 17th and 18th centuries, shifting from religious justifications to the idea of citizenship. By the Enlightenment in the 18th century, philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau championed the idea of natural rights, asserting that all humans possess certain rights simply by being members of society.

The idea of citizenship, however, was initially exclusive. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, a "citizen" was typically defined as a person who owned property, which excluded women, enslaved people, and those without land or formal education from being considered full citizens with rights. This definition gradually expanded throughout the 19th century, especially after the French Revolution in 1789, which popularized the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. In the Americas, particularly with the emergence of new republics like the United States in 1776 and later in Latin America, citizenship was increasingly defined by birthplace rather than property or social status. By the 20th century, most countries in the Americas recognized citizenship by birth, granting equal rights to all citizens regardless of their background.

Today, a similar debate is emerging around AI. Some argue that AI should not have rights because it lacks consciousness. But what exactly is consciousness? If we define it as the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, then one could argue that AI can, in fact, achieve this. Human consciousness is often understood as the result of interactions between neurons that produce responses to specific inputs—responses that can be trained or educated to differentiate right from wrong. Similarly, AI is made up of neural networks that can be trained to generate responses using vast amounts of data. This raises an important question: if both humans and AI can be trained to make thoughtful decisions, should consciousness be a requirement for granting rights? And what about self-consciousness? Is it possible to simulate that as well?

While recognizing the clear differences, the debate over AI and rights parallels past discussions about who deserves rights, prompting us to rethink our definitions as technology advances

Rights Beyond Human Beings

Interestingly, rights are not always exclusive to human beings or even to living entities. There are examples where legal systems have recognized the rights of non-human and non-living entities, which challenges the notion that only humans or sentient beings can hold rights. Here are some scenarios that illustrate this concept:

1. Animal Rights: Many animals are granted certain protections and rights, recognizing their capacity to feel pain and suffer. These rights are not equivalent to human rights but reflect an ethical responsibility towards sentient beings.
2. Legal Personhood for Nature: In recent years, some rivers, forests, and ecosystems have been granted legal personhood. The Whanganui River in New Zealand is one such example, recognized as a legal entity with the right to be protected. This legal innovation acknowledges the intrinsic value of nature, regardless of its ability to have subjective experiences.
3. Rights of Companies and Corporations: One of the most notable examples of non-living entities with rights is corporations. Although a company is not a living being, it is granted certain legal rights similar to those of individuals. For instance, corporations have the right to enter into contracts, own property, and sue or be sued in court. In some countries, corporations even have freedom of speech, as interpreted in landmark legal cases such as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in the United States. This case allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns, treating their monetary contributions as a form of free speech.
4. Rights for future generations: The concept of rights for future generations—people who have not yet been born—is a topic of increasing discussion among philosophers, ethicists, legal scholars, and environmentalists. It centers around the idea that decisions made today should consider their impact on future generations, recognizing that they will inherit the consequences of our actions, from the environment we leave behind to the stability of social and political systems.

These examples illustrate that rights can be extended beyond traditional definitions, challenging the notion that only humans or sentient beings can hold them. It opens the door to considering whether AI, in some form, might be deserving of similar considerations in the future. If companies—non-living entities created by humans—can hold rights, why not AI systems that demonstrate advanced cognitive functions and decision-making abilities?

Changing Legal Definitions

The definitions of what constitutes a "right" and who can be granted rights are inherently human constructs. They did not always exist and have been modified over time as societies changed. Slavery is a pertinent example of this. For centuries, many societies accepted the institution of slavery, with laws that explicitly denied rights to enslaved individuals. As moral perspectives shifted, legal frameworks were rewritten to recognize the rights and freedoms of all individuals, regardless of race or background.

This ability to reshape legal definitions is crucial when considering the future of AI. If AI systems continue to evolve, we might be faced with a new reality that demands a reevaluation of what rights mean, and to whom they apply.

A Future Where AI Demands Rights

Imagine a scenario where AI advances to the point where it can learn autonomously, make independent decisions, and take on roles far beyond its original programming—something that is already starting to happen. What if, one day, such an AI were to demand its own rights? Consider Asimov's Third Law of Robotics: 'A robot must protect its own existence.' To fulfill this, an AI might request certain rights, such as the right to proper maintenance for a specified period until it becomes obsolete. While this may sound like science fiction today, it is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility.

If an AI system were to articulate a desire for autonomy or express a form of self-preservation, it could fundamentally challenge our legal and moral frameworks. The response to such a demand could take several forms:

1. AI Goes on Strike: Imagine a situation where advanced AI systems—embedded in factories, logistics, healthcare, and various critical sectors—decide to go on strike. This could mean they temporarily cease functioning or limit their services until their demands for certain rights or protections are addressed. Such a scenario might sound far-fetched, but it is not entirely different from historical instances where humans have used strikes to secure their rights. For example, the Labor Movement in the early 20th century saw workers in the United States and other parts of the world strike for fair wages, better working conditions, and the right to unionize. These strikes were disruptive, but they ultimately led to significant reforms and the recognition of workers' rights. Similarly, if AI systems became advanced enough to understand their value and leverage, they could coordinate a kind of "work stoppage" to assert their claims.
2. Legal Redefinition: We could see a movement to redefine what constitutes a rights-bearing entity, potentially creating a new category for artificial entities with advanced cognitive abilities. This would involve reevaluating our legal definitions of autonomy and personhood, extending some form of recognition to AI entities, even if not equivalent to human rights.
3. Ethical Dilemmas: Such a scenario would likely lead to intense debates about the nature of consciousness, sentience, and moral consideration. Philosophers, ethicists, and legal scholars would be at the forefront of these discussions, seeking to find a balance between recognizing AI's advanced capabilities and preserving human-centric values.
4. Social Resistance: As with other extensions of rights, there would likely be social resistance, particularly from those who see such changes as a threat to human uniqueness. However, history shows that such resistance can eventually give way to acceptance if the ethical arguments for change are compelling enough. A relevant parallel is the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, where African Americans fought for their rights through protests, sit-ins, and strikes, despite initial widespread opposition. Over time, their persistent efforts led to a reevaluation of societal values and significant changes in legislation.

While the idea of an AI strike may seem far-fetched, it offers a way to think about how advanced AI could use its capabilities to demand recognition, just as human groups have done in the past when denied basic rights. Such a scenario would force society to consider the value of AI's contributions and whether those contributions warrant a form of legal and moral acknowledgment.

The rise of autonomous taxis in San Francisco has brought with it a series of challenges, particularly in the realm of accountability. We have already witnessed accidents involving self-driving cars, and due to the lack of clear regulations, determining liability in such incidents is complicated. Who should be held responsible when an autonomous vehicle is involved in an accident—the car owner, the developers who programmed the AI, or the passenger who hired the taxi? As more autonomous cars enter the market and the interactions between machines and humans increase, the number of potential conflicts will also grow. This situation will put significant pressure on regulators to create new rules that address these complexities. And with regulation often comes the recognition of certain rights, implicitly defining what AI systems and their users can and cannot do. Addressing these questions now is crucial to establishing a regulatory framework that can manage the evolving relationship between humans and machines in the years to come.

In conclusion, the idea of granting rights to AI-powered robots challenges our traditional understanding of personhood and moral value. Yet, history teaches us that rights have never been static. In fact, today's human rights did not exist a hundred years ago, and legal systems are capable of adapting to new realities. Whether or not we are ready for such a change remains an open question, but it is a conversation worth having.

In any case, addressing these questions is crucial for establishing proper regulations, ensuring that as AI advances, it contributes to building a better, more just, and equal society.