Who holds the power, who stands to benefit, and who is disadvantaged by any given decision are crucial considerations that the suffering-focused approach seems to miss. This is a good framing, and key to showing how this issue is not just ethical but political as well. In fact, by the time we have morally significant AI, it is not implausible to think that there will also be means for inserting desires, beliefs, etc. into a human mind, or designing human babies to specification, fixing their roles and life paths before they are even born. Who is to stop those in power from doing this to us? How are we to advocate for our own cognitive liberty and morphological freedom if we are not willing to grant it to AI?
I agree! The AI welfare community needs more perspectives from political philosophy; this is not merely a welfare issue, but also a question of justice.
Who holds the power, who stands to benefit, and who is disadvantaged by any given decision are crucial considerations that the suffering-focused approach seems to miss. This is a good framing, and key to showing how this issue is not just ethical but political as well. In fact, by the time we have morally significant AI, it is not implausible to think that there will also be means for inserting desires, beliefs, etc. into a human mind, or designing human babies to specification, fixing their roles and life paths before they are even born. Who is to stop those in power from doing this to us? How are we to advocate for our own cognitive liberty and morphological freedom if we are not willing to grant it to AI?
I agree! The AI welfare community needs more perspectives from political philosophy; this is not merely a welfare issue, but also a question of justice.