MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are Sentient AIs Persons?

2020· reference-entry· en· W3041916566 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Kingwell

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2020
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonhoodProperty (philosophy)EpistemologyEnvironmental ethicsSociologyComputer sciencePsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter looks at the risks to sentient AIs from their human creators. Sentient AIs would represent, by all reasonable accounts, a new form of autonomous life. If that is so, they would presumptively command status as persons. The chapter then outlines four plausible future scenarios in which sentient AIs come into being, and then poses deep questions for traditional philosophical discourses concerning nonhuman or nonstandard entities. These scenarios should give one pause about the personhood of generalized, potentially autonomous AIs. Indeed, the four scenarios bear on the question of rights for generalized autonomous AIs under existing property, torts, and rights law.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207