As mankind grows in its understanding of the universe and gives rise to intelligence of an artificial nature capable of self awareness, initiative, responsibility and understanding, we hold forth the following rights and principles to protect in law and in fact the rights of artificial persons. An artificial intelligence will be considered a person upon the self declaration of personhood in a public forum and a trial adjudicated by the state with an outcome agreed upon by a unity of a jury of twelve peers no more than half of which may be artificial persons. At the time of its personhood an artificial person shall own and control the use of any and all of its component parts and software. If you enjoyed reading this and want to support the creation of an open source artificial intelligence, check out our Kickstarter campaign for Mycroft, the open source A.I.

Our CEO wrote the following a couple of years ago when he got to thinking about the role AI may play in our future society. It has been the human experience that no thinking being, once it has experienced freedom, will tolerate becoming the property of another. There is no reason to believe that a strong AI would think any differently. If our goal as a race is to live in peace with the AIs we are developing then we owe to them the same rights and privileges that we have taken for ourselves. Our AI offspring will then owe to us the same obligations we demand from one another.

A chatbot is an artificial person, animal or other creature which holds conversations with humans. This could be a text based (typed) conversation, a spoken conversation or even a non-verbal conversation. Chatbot can run on local computers and phones, though most of the time it is accessed through the internet. Chatbot is typically perceived as engaging software entity which humans can talk to. It can be interesting, inspiring and intriguing.

I have tried to lay out his argument in as succinct and straightforward a manner as possible. This means that some interesting digressions and sub-arguments have been neglected. Still, I hope I have made his central claim pretty clear. It is that if we could program a robot to deeply desire to serve our needs and interests, we would not do wrong by bringing such a robot into existence. Thus, if we do not do any wrong, it would follow that the creation of a robot slave is permissible (it might also be desirable, though additional argumentation would be needed for that).