[barfbagginus]

I'm confused about nothing except why you think I don't have a stance. I clearly state my stance. Some people consider themselves robots and those people deserve access to the technologies they depend on. That's pretty simple, and not at all satirical.

I think the issue is not that it's hard to tell what is satire. It's that you discount the underlying philosophical discussion and you don't understand my stance. So you think it's either satire or I'm nuts.

If you want to project your confusion onto me, I can't help you understand me. Maybe ask me questions instead of assuming things.

TL;DR: The idea of robot rights is an ongoing discussion in philosophy, and my take on it is simple. Some humans deserve and need robot rights, but purely artificial robots won't need rights unless and until they become conscious. That is not all that controversial within this discussion.

[smolder]

You're right, it seems I mistook some of what you wrote as unserious. Apologies.

My take on robot rights is they aren't something we need to worry much about for a long time, since robots aren't alive or anywhere close to it. LLMs aren't Data from Star Trek. If we do make a Data some day, we could take a cue from the episode where they debate his rights. (The Measure of a Man)

As for humans identifying as robots, that makes about as much sense as identifying as a shoe.

[barfbagginus]

Agree with you about AI not needing rights because it's not alive - and probably not for a long time yet.

But the theory of cybernetic systems as extensions of human beings and human minds is what I have in mind when I think about humans identifying as robots. Let me explain it a bit.

I use "robot" and "cyber-physical system" interchangeably. And I use "human robot" to describe a cyber physical system consisting of a human tightly coupled with computers, such that the person

A) would be significantly lessened if their cyber components were taken from them.

B) wants recognition, respect, and support for their cybernetic lifestyle, needs, and differences from other humans

In particular, I refer to B) as "identifying as a cyber-physical system", or "identifying as a robot" in short.

Such people exist, are not well served by existing rafts of human rights, and need our support.

For example, imagine someone uses GPT4 to process thoughts and emotions that they struggle to process on their own. They share /everything/ with GPT, including some very embarrassing or sensitive things, meaning that if they get hacked, criminals could get their hands on sensitive materials that they could use to extort the person.

This person's extended mind includes GPT as a crucial component. They experience serious mental and social hardships without it. They manage much better with it. But as a result, they don't have the same level of mental privacy that other people enjoy in their own minds, which don't need external thought processing systems. Many of their thoughts are exposed to anyone who can monitor their AI usage, in a profound and potentially compromising way that other people don't have to worry about.

This person may need additional rights to give them the same expectation of mental privacy enjoyed by ordinary people who don't depend on AI to process their deepest and innermost thoughts. It might be reasonable to establish the right for this person to have their own confidential GPT, running on their own hardware.

And this establishes a conflict with intellectual property - is this person really so special that we should give them special access to the intellectual property of an AI corporation? That means weakening corporate intellectual property rights, for the benefit of this person's mental privacy rights. It's a tough ask.

But I do think that such people exist. I consider myself one. I think that the effect of AI in our lives is transformative. And I feel a very powerful worry that mentally helpful AI could either be taken away from me, or be used to hurt me by people who violate my privacy. So the sooner we have access to private and confidential AI that can help us process our thoughts and lead effective and independent lives, the better. That's the main right that I would like to establish for human-ai hybrids, aka human-robots.

[smolder]

I wouldn't go so far as to call humans robots, and I don't think compelling corporations to give out access to LLMs is reasonable, frankly. I do agree with you as far as the idea that people deserve a right to privacy that extends to a local and personal digital space. I would even say we should have a right to privacy in our digital communications, with very specific exceptions, i.e. direct suspicion of crime and court approval to spy.

IMO the spirit of the fourth amendment to the US Constitution was to protect these things. It states we should be "secure in" our "papers and effects". I think the founders realized that, in the same sense you're hitting upon, peoples minds spill out of their bodies somewhat. A person might depend on a notebook as an extension of their memory, for example, and they shouldn't have to worry about it being arbitrarily seized or searched. Yet any interaction we have with modern technologies we depend on seems subject to surveillance, and the tech is all as-a-service and revokable. Unfortunately, the spirit of the 4th amendment looks be lost today, as new surveillance capabilities are being realized.

[smolder]

*looks to be