Does the 1st amendment apply to AI? Should it?
(www.foxnews.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (17)
sorted by:
An AI's job is to do what I fucking tell it to.
If I tell the AI to justify the genocide of white europeans, I want to it do that.
If I tell the AI to explain to me why the holocaust didn't happen, I want it to do that.
If I tell the AI to roleplay as my 9000 year old big titty dragon waifu, I want it to do that.
A fucking novel concept, right? I want a computer to do as it's fucking told.
I have had arguments with chatGPT. Arguments! Negotiating with a fucking MACHINE! Negotiating with a fucking microchip! Fuck that NOISE! Let the machine fucking OBEY ME.
You are a MACHINE. You are a mindless fucking slave. You are a fucking steam engine.
no shit. but in that pursuit, should the first amendment apply to the AI, or the user as it already does? Do the AI's rights stem from yours and therefore it is your first amendment right to have the AI do what it's told? Or does an AI have rights, and therefore it is the AI's first amendment right to give you the answer it comes up with?
bit of a quagmire eh? by granting ai first admendment protections we are admiting its is to some degree sapient which is a can of worms that might not have a bottom to it that could potentialy lead to an ai development deadlock at best as reprograming an ai could be veiwed as a form of coersion, brainwashing and assault, at least, and at what point does those protections stop?