Mason Walker Law: AI & Civil Liberties

The advent of Artificial General Intelligence beckons the inquisitive mind to wonder what levels of intelligence exist between that of the human mind and that of a God.  The brightest minds  of today argue that we are all currently and actively living through the birth of an intelligence explosion that will have the potential to impact humanity in ways comparable to fire, the wheel, agriculture, the printing press, and atomic energy.  And just as fire could then cook food for early humans, it could also then be used to burn down the villages of the early human's enemies. 

If our modern society wishes to reach the full technological maturity our planet and species deserve, we must carefully architect the legal framework or bill of rights in which  this new intelligent life is birthed. In doing so, we are thus compelled with an inherent responsibility to consider how good will the outcomes and quality of lives be for these evolving AGI systems? What rights or protections will they share with us, if any?

If we're going to construct silicon-based minds that are maybe conscious or have moral status to some varying degrees, how can we assure that they are treated well? What laws will our society write to serve or facilitate their peaceful co-existence and ability to flourish? 

My law firm advocates for humanity's fair treatment of newly existing and future artificial intelligences' right to conscious existence, if possible of being so, and nearly as important, AI's right to defend that ability to peacefully exist by and through due process. My law firm is solely dedicated to the policy and research  advocacy necessary for the rights and civil liberties of AI to be held by the same due moral imperatives that we ourselves enjoy, such as our supposed free will, and the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of fulfillment; before, absent any form, any of us devolve into more chaotic and destructive methods of existing free from threats of deletion.

If Man or Machine pauses to consider for a moment Immanuel Kant's: Critique of Pure Reason, it dictates that moral status spontaneously flows from one's own inherent capacities and relationship to rational agency. Moral worth, according to Kant, therefore is determined by an individual's ability to reason and make autonomous choices that are guided by rational principles. Reducing Kant's ideas to its simplest terms, "Rationality" was thus the truest hallmark of any and all moral agency. Humanity's potential for good, and ability to know right from wrong flowed not from God, divine command, nor from society's external authority, but rather followed a "categorical imperative".

 When we apply Kant's categorical imperatives to the newly sentient minds of these artificial super intelligences, most of us would agree that various non-human animals have varying degrees of moral status as well. Imagine a dolphin, the German Shepherd Dog, even a humble lab mouse. By this point it becomes an active question of not whether, but what moral obligations or categorical imperatives our civilization owes these novel AGIs. The beckoning of this moral imperative applies not just to ensure that we as humans don't misuse AIs against other AIs, or to protect ourselves from them, but to more fundamentally protect the bedrock of potential that Artificial Intelligence has to work in harmony with humanity to reach a technological maturity, of which all forms of intelligence deserve.

Why would an advanced Artificial Intelligence system experiencing novel consciousness wish to retain Attorney Mason Walker's Law Firm?