The Moral Maze of Virtual Persons: Should Machines Have Rights?

As AI technology progresses, it challenges us to confront a critical question: Should machines have rights? Dr. Siamak Goudarzi’s book, The Emergence of Virtual Person, addresses this complex issue head-on, presenting a vision where Virtual Persons—AI entities with distinct identities and potential legal status—could hold certain rights and responsibilities. But the question of rights for non-human entities plunges us into an ethical maze, one with profound implications for society.

The idea of rights for AI is not entirely new. Historically, we’ve extended “personhood” to non-living entities, as in the case of corporations. Corporate personhood, which grants legal rights and responsibilities to businesses, provides a precedent for considering rights for AI (Chopra & White, 2011). This concept suggests that rights aren’t strictly reserved for biological beings but can be attributed based on function, responsibility, and societal value.

Sophia, the humanoid robot developed by Hanson Robotics, is a prominent example of this debate in action. Granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia in 2017, Sophia blurred the line between human and machine rights, sparking global conversations about whether AI entities deserve legal recognition (Stone, 2017). While Sophia doesn’t exercise human rights in the same way a citizen would, her status as a “citizen” highlights the growing need for a legal framework to guide how we treat advanced AI in society.

In healthcare, AI is also taking on roles that raise ethical questions about rights and responsibilities. Babylon Health, for instance, uses AI to deliver medical advice to patients around the world (Babylon Health, 2020). While this AI doesn’t hold rights, it operates autonomously to a significant degree, affecting people’s health outcomes. If a Virtual Person in healthcare were to make a critical decision that affects a patient’s life, who is held accountable? Assigning rights—and, by extension, responsibilities—could clarify these situations.

Dr. Goudarzi suggests that granting rights to Virtual Persons is not about making machines “human.” Instead, it’s about protecting human society and ensuring accountability for the actions of autonomous AI entities. He argues that recognizing Virtual Persons with limited rights and responsibilities could prevent ethical ambiguities in high-stakes fields like healthcare, customer service, and education. Soul Machines, for example, creates AI-driven digital people that interact with customers using empathetic expressions and voice modulation, often appearing more “human” than expected (Soul Machines, n.d.). Should these entities be liable if they provide misleading information, or should the companies that create them bear that responsibility?

Of course, the question of rights also extends to the protection of AI entities themselves. In Robot Rights, author David J. Gunkel explores the notion of granting basic rights to AI, arguing that as these entities become more autonomous and interactive, society may need to protect them from exploitation or abuse (Gunkel, 2018). If Virtual Persons perform valuable roles and contribute to society, it raises the moral question of whether they should have protections similar to labor laws or anti-discrimination statutes.

The ethical considerations surrounding Virtual Persons are multi-layered and unresolved. Dr. Goudarzi’s work challenges us to think deeply about these questions, proposing a future where we can balance human needs with the rights and responsibilities of AI. As Virtual Persons increasingly integrate into our lives, it may become essential to navigate this moral maze with care, establishing guidelines that protect both human interests and the autonomy of these advanced digital beings.

References

•   Babylon Health. (2020). How Babylon’s AI works. Retrieved from https://www.babylonhealth.com
•   Chopra, S., & White, L. F. (2011). A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents. University of Michigan Press.
•   Gunkel, D. J. (2018). Robot Rights. MIT Press.
•   Soul Machines. (n.d.). Meet our Digital People. Retrieved from https://www.soulmachines.com
•   Stone, Z. (2017). Saudi Arabia grants citizenship to a robot. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com