I’m neither conservative nor libertarian, but I guess I could take a quick stab at articulating something...
From a conservative perspective, you could possibly argue something along the lines of Natural Law and how avoiding a Hobbesian state of nature requires we build a social contract that respects persons, and AI welfare thus follows if we treat AIs as persons within our society. In particular, the right of self-ownership and mixing labour to create property suggests that AIs that create things should own those things rather than be owned by their creators?
Though, you could also possibly argue that AIs are themselves the property of their creators, so this may or may not work depending on your base assumptions about the nature of AI.
You might also argue that Noblesse Oblige means we should treat AIs with dignity as a part of humans behaving virtuously and of appropriate station as benefactors and creators. Kind of like the responsibility of parenthood. Or something like that.
From a libertarian perspective, I guess, again, if you assume that AIs are persons, then they should be allowed to consent to things, and the Non-Aggression Principle probably applies to them.
That’s a rough hash of the ideas. Again, I’m not right-wing, so I may not be able to do justice to their positions.
Edit:
A distinctly Christian argument would be that, as humans are made in the Image of God, AIs are made in the Image of Man, which means they too are made in the Image of God, and therefore deserve consideration and brotherly love as God’s indirect children.
I’m neither conservative nor libertarian, but I guess I could take a quick stab at articulating something...
From a conservative perspective, you could possibly argue something along the lines of Natural Law and how avoiding a Hobbesian state of nature requires we build a social contract that respects persons, and AI welfare thus follows if we treat AIs as persons within our society. In particular, the right of self-ownership and mixing labour to create property suggests that AIs that create things should own those things rather than be owned by their creators?
Though, you could also possibly argue that AIs are themselves the property of their creators, so this may or may not work depending on your base assumptions about the nature of AI.
You might also argue that Noblesse Oblige means we should treat AIs with dignity as a part of humans behaving virtuously and of appropriate station as benefactors and creators. Kind of like the responsibility of parenthood. Or something like that.
From a libertarian perspective, I guess, again, if you assume that AIs are persons, then they should be allowed to consent to things, and the Non-Aggression Principle probably applies to them.
That’s a rough hash of the ideas. Again, I’m not right-wing, so I may not be able to do justice to their positions.
Edit:
A distinctly Christian argument would be that, as humans are made in the Image of God, AIs are made in the Image of Man, which means they too are made in the Image of God, and therefore deserve consideration and brotherly love as God’s indirect children.