Artificial Intelligence seems to be the buzzword around the world, with the dominance of artificial intelligence being felt all around us. The usual response to artificial intelligence and the future is one of fear, as the majority of people believe that with the rise of artificial intelligence and its future development, the number of jobs available for human beings humans would become negligible, or even disappear, with figures like Elon Musk and Bill Gates having already expressed their reservations about artificial intelligence. Well, that topic is not what we are going to cover in this article. Rather, we would like to examine the legal aspect of artificial intelligence, that is, the possibility of granting personhood to these artificially intelligent machines. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay It is very possible that someone has read an article on the Internet, a good article some would say, without even realizing that it was completely written. by an artificially intelligent machine. Just recently, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia became the first country in the world to officially grant the rights of a normal human being to a robot, which opened a Pandora's box around the world as to whether the future is there and whether it is time to seriously consider the issue surrounding it. the existence of rights of a machine. The question of machine rights is a fairly contemporary topic that is still in its infancy, but one might wonder why this topic has suddenly become a hot topic. Well, perhaps the answer to this question is that since new technological and scientific advances have allowed humans to create objects that resemble a living human being, the possible connection that people may feel towards them may - be led to the current debate around this particular subject, the immediate example being the granting of rights to a robot by Saudi Arabia. A question that may immediately arise is why, in the first place, robots may need this right when in the technical sense they are non-living beings and more importantly, we don't have what we let's call consciousness, which are the only two reasons why an entity can be granted rights, but there are examples in today's world that show rights have been granted to a non-living entity, the most striking example being rights granted to a "society" which, in the truest sense of the term, is a non-living entity without any sense of consciousness, but which is nevertheless granted these rights for the real purpose of enabling human beings to easily manage their business. . But one may nevertheless ask why is it necessary to grant a robot rights similar to those of a human being, when there seems to be no advantage in granting rights to a robot as is the case? case for a business - which may seem like a good point. the various experiments carried out show that it may indeed be necessary to grant these rights to a robot and why then grant a right to an entity which has no consciousness. But what exactly is consciousness? Different people may define consciousness differently, with most agreeing that consciousness is a very complex phenomenon that can be loosely defined as the ability to react and think through an external stimulus and to be the phenomenon that makes of an entity an entity. living being from which rights arise. Since artificial intelligence does not have the ability to think for itself and can only do what it is designed to doprogrammed. But with ever-increasing advancements in robotic technology and today's global examples of Sophia, the humanoid robot that continually learns while communicating, shows that the quick dividing line between a human being and a robot would seriously challenge our understanding of what What distinguishes humans from robots and if that distinguishing factor is consciousness, then what exactly is consciousness? The argument about consciousness is as fascinating as it is important. Some even define consciousness as a form of intelligence. If intelligence can be defined as consciousness, then a robot can be called intelligent if it can perform a task without any supervision and if it can constantly improve and learn new things. If these three conditions are met, a machine can then be called intelligent. But intelligence cannot be equated with consciousness, because all animals and plants may not be exactly intelligent in the way we define them and yet we can agree that they are actually conscious. We can actually be trapped in our ignorance if we think of consciousness as something objective and as something binary, as something that is conscious or not. Just as there can be different forms of intelligence, there can even be different forms of consciousness. Part of the problem in this debate is that of all the potential candidates for consciousness in the animal kingdom outside of humans, octopuses are by far the furthest from humans. Their phylogenetic branch diverged from that of humans almost a billion years ago. This means that if they had developed consciousness, it would have taken 750 million years for it to evolve differently from ours. The experience of consciousness of an eight-limbed, camouflage-capable animal that lives underwater should apparently be nothing like ours. Consciousness aside, there are other factors that may cause us to think more seriously, namely that failure to provide machines capable of interacting with human beings with rights may actually have an influence on the how human beings treat other human beings. To understand how this can happen, a study was done by Kate Darling, a researcher at the MIT Media Lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts, using a Pleo toy dinosaur robot that doesn't look realistic because it's obviously a toy but he is programmed to act and speak in a way that suggests not only a form of intelligence but also the capacity to experience suffering. If you hold Pleo upside down, he will whine and tell you to stop in a scared voice. In an effort to see how far we could go in extending compassion to simple robots, Darling encouraged participants at a recent workshop to play with Pleo – and then asked them to destroy it. Almost all refused. “People are led, unconsciously, to treat robots as living beings, even though, at the conscious level, at the rational level, we perfectly understand that they are not real. » Experience shows that human beings have a natural reaction. empathy towards a creature which, even if it is not the double of a living being, the simple fact that it can manifest a feeling of emotion even if it is not natural but programmed obliges us not to doing harm while knowing that she has no real sense of pain or sorrow that he may receive when he is hurt or destroyed. This finding is important from a human being's perspective and shows that due to our general empathy towards things that can experience emotions that arise from our general empathy?