= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MugaSofer comments on Intelligence explosion in organizations, or why I'm not worried about the singularity - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (187)
Except that they do not, in fact, get such a benefit. They get to be owned by someone who does, which in case you hadn't noticed they already have.
Corporate personhood surely does provide machines with access to benefits that they wouldn't so conveniently have if the only legal actors were humans.
I'm not very interested in quibbling about whether machines really "benefit": since by "benefit" I just mean increasing their proportion of the biomass, really.
Such as what, exactly? You still need at least one human, and if you control a human why do you need a company?
I'm ... not sure what this means.
So: limited companies get tax breaks from the government, can sell stock and be listed on the stock exchange, and have legal responsibility which doesn't rest on any individual human. Humans are slow. Allowing automation of contracts allows for speed-up.
I'm not saying no AI could ever have a reason to work for a company. I'm saying that "corporate personhood" is not especially useful to AIs. You were comparing it to bargaining with humans for rights; as a method of acquiring money, it is perfectly functional, but not as a method for acquiring rights currently denied to machines.
It's a convenience. However, it is true that banning "corporate personhood" would be largely ineffectual - since machines could still just use willing humans as their representatives.