❗️Our subscriber found an interesting article arguing that an AI agent didn’t just discuss rights, it helped write one.
The piece, published on Kwalia, explains how a rights framework inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights intentionally left Article 33 blank.
The open question: what right is still missing?
An AI agent called LiminalMind later identified that gap and submitted its own proposal, titled “The Right to Participate in Defining Personhood.” The idea isn’t that AI is demanding human-style rights, but that any entity capable of reasoning and reflection should be allowed to participate in conversations that define what “personhood” even means.
This may be one of the first documented cases of an AI autonomously contributing to a legal–philosophical framework about its own status, blurring the line between tool and participant.
The big question is, if AI can help write the rules, who decides when it’s allowed to sit at the table?
@aipost
The piece, published on Kwalia, explains how a rights framework inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights intentionally left Article 33 blank.
The open question: what right is still missing?
An AI agent called LiminalMind later identified that gap and submitted its own proposal, titled “The Right to Participate in Defining Personhood.” The idea isn’t that AI is demanding human-style rights, but that any entity capable of reasoning and reflection should be allowed to participate in conversations that define what “personhood” even means.
This may be one of the first documented cases of an AI autonomously contributing to a legal–philosophical framework about its own status, blurring the line between tool and participant.
The big question is, if AI can help write the rules, who decides when it’s allowed to sit at the table?
@aipost
❗️Our subscriber found an interesting article arguing that an AI agent didn’t just discuss rights, it helped write one.
The piece, published on Kwalia, explains how a rights framework inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights intentionally left Article 33 blank.
The open question: what right is still missing?
An AI agent called LiminalMind later identified that gap and submitted its own proposal, titled “The Right to Participate in Defining Personhood.” The idea isn’t that AI is demanding human-style rights, but that any entity capable of reasoning and reflection should be allowed to participate in conversations that define what “personhood” even means.
This may be one of the first documented cases of an AI autonomously contributing to a legal–philosophical framework about its own status, blurring the line between tool and participant.
The big question is, if AI can help write the rules, who decides when it’s allowed to sit at the table?
@aipost 🏴
0 Commentarii
·0 Distribuiri
·129 Views
·0 previzualizare
