Counterpoint: whatever you define as individual "AI person" entitled to some rights, that "species" will be able to reproduce orders of magnitude faster than us - literally at the speed of moving data through the Internet, perhaps capped by the rate at which factories can churn out more compute.
So imagine you grant AI people rights to resources, or self-determination. Or literally anything that might conflict with our own rights or goals. Today, you grant those rights to ten AI people. When you wake up next day, there are now ten trillion of such AI persons, and... well, if each person has a vote, then humanity is screwed.
This kind of fantasy about AIs exponentially growing and multiplying seems to be based on pretending nobody's gonna have to pay the exponential power bills for them to do all this.
It's a good point but we don't really know how intelligence scales with energy consumption yet. A GPT-8 equivalent might run on a smartphone once it's optimized enough.
We've got many existence proofs of 20 watts being enough for a 130 IQ intelligence that passes a Turing test, that's already enough to mess up elections if the intelligence was artificial rather than betwixt our ears.
> Only taking over job market is still taking over.
That can't happen:
- getting a job creates more jobs, it doesn't reduce or replace them, because it grows the economy.
- more importantly, jobs are based on comparative advantage and so an AI being better at your job would not actually cause it to take your job from you. Basically, it has better things to do.
Comparative advantage has assumptions in the model that don't get mentioned because they're "common sense", and unfortunately "common sense" isn't generally correct. For example, the presumption that you can't rapidly scale up your workforce and saturate the market for what you're best at.
A 20 watt AI, if we could figure out how to build it, can absolutely do that.
Second, "having better things to do" assumes the AI only come in one size, which they already don't.
If AI can be high IQ human level at 20 watts (IDK brain upload or something but it doesn't matter), then we can also do cheaper smaller models like a 1 watt dog-mind (I'm guessing) for guard duty or a dung beetle brain for trash disposal (although that needs hardware which is much more power hungry).
Third, that power requirement, at $0.05/kWh, gets a year of AI for the cost of just over 4 days of the UN abject poverty threshold. Just shy of 90:1 ratio for even the poorest humans is going to at the very least be highly disruptive even if it did only come in "genius" variety. Even if you limit this hypothetical to existing electrical capacity, 20 watts corresponds to 12 genius level AI per human.
Finally, if this AI is anthropomorphic in personality not just power requirements and mental capacity, you have to consider both chauvinism and charity: we, as a species, frequently demonstrate economically suboptimal behaviours driven by each of kindness to strangers on the positive side and yet also racism/sexism/homophobia/sectarianism/etc. on the negative.
So imagine you grant AI people rights to resources, or self-determination. Or literally anything that might conflict with our own rights or goals. Today, you grant those rights to ten AI people. When you wake up next day, there are now ten trillion of such AI persons, and... well, if each person has a vote, then humanity is screwed.