A reader manages to cross two threads, regarding animal rights and sentient machines, in a comment:
It’s amusing to think of the universe at large as deterministic and our exercise of free will as a sort of random number generator for the cosmos. But we’re not random; there are constraints. Free will that fails to take gravity into account quickly ceases to exist.
As long as free will must work within conditions required to maintain our physiology, we have at best constrained will. We can’t subvert basic physics.
And I don’t take free will to be quite the same as random will, but simply that, presented a choice, it is not predetermined which alternative we’ll select.
That said, the human range of choices is greater than chimps’ due to evolved physiology (with notable exceptions, i.e., American congressional representatives). Self awareness appears to be an emergent property of neural networks. We’ve learned enough about chimps to recognize they have preferences, make choices, vary in temperament and have some measure of self-awareness. Enough so they can behave in ways remarkably similar to urban street performers…The development of AI will introduce some really interesting new perspectives on the question of self awareness, personhood, and free will. If AI grows to exceed human capabilities, we’d better set a good example in how we treat chimps.
However, there are those who say this is not enough: the group Stop Vivisection wants the directive abolished [i.e., vivisection completely banned] and has submitted over a million signatures to the European Commission. Under the European Citizens’ Initiative, a million signatures triggers a meeting of the EC to consider the petition. It’s due on 11 May.
Biomedical researchers, supported by European and UK regulations, strive for reduction, replacement and refinement of animal use where possible, for example by using cell cultures and computer models instead. My university has a great track record in developing such strategies.
But animals are vital for many areas of research linked to human health. The study of regeneration in complex organs like the liver or spinal cord is one such area. It cannot currently be simulated.
The Stop Vivisection people may be on to more than they know, if sentient machines progress to independence.
It does seem to me that a sentient machine culture would be very different from our own cultures, for two reasons. First, the range of cultures within humanity is really quite remarkable, so there’s little reason to think sentient machines (which I will now call SM, because AI has come to irritate me) would have something similar, except for reasons of imitation. Secondly, culture is driven by needs as modified by available resources to satisfy those needs (and, yes, desires); the requirements of a SM would be considerably different, that being energy source at the very least, but perhaps not a reproductive drive that requires a mate (although the development of sex as a reproductive strategy, as mysterious as that has been, may still be a dominant force in SM culture, although I refuse to speculate just at the moment – I am not up on the use of evolutionary theory in algorithmic design, much to my chagrin); would intellectual stimulation be required by an SM? Hard to say; my real point is simply an SM’s motivations will no doubt be far different from us messy biological sorts.
