I’m all for it.
Comment on furries in shambles
erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 23 hours agoI’ve had enough non-human friends that I extend the definition to other animals. I’ve personally known dogs and cats that display remarkable personality and emotional intelligence, not to mention all the great examples of non-human animal communication and love available online. Animals are such people, when you get to know them.
bilb@lemmy.ml 23 hours ago
BooBees@fedinsfw.app 23 hours ago
Same, personhood isn’t limited to people. If you can be a best friend or confidant or true co-companion that is mutually beneficial and mutually understood, that’s all I need to know there’s a person in there. I’ll even extend it to other animals that exhibit complex thought, considerations, relflective behavior, but I don’t push that on other hums people, if they want to join me in doing so, they’re my kind of people. The more the merrier. I feel bad for people who can’t see animals that earned their friendship as fiends, as people.
OwOarchist@pawb.social 21 hours ago
Where the waters really get muddy is in deciding where to draw the line between ‘person’ and ‘not a person’ when it comes to AI.
Current AI is almost certainly not a person … but at some point, it seems almost inevitable that it will progress to the point where it crosses the line of personhood. Where do we draw that line? How will we know if an AI has crossed it? And how do we address the rights and responsibilities of an artificial person? Is it then unethical to turn it off or delete it? Should it have a say in government, be able to vote? Can you get married to it? Does it have a right to create copies of itself the way you have a right to have children? Can it own property? Can/should it be punished if it breaks laws, and how?