Brent Cohn
@bcohn.bsky.social
Reposted by Brent Cohn
this is imo the correct take. we can't and won't ever grant AIs personhood (barring catastrophe), because the only defensible criterion for doing so is, roughly, "can talk about its internal states roughly like a human can", which is a milestone we already passed a couple of years ago
a) Machines have been superhuman at many intellectual tasks for decades. But as long as they don’t have legal personhood, this gets framed and expressed as “tool use.”
b) I don’t think legal personhood is coming soon.
c) “AGI” is going to be a perpetually receding horizon, for social reasons.
b) I don’t think legal personhood is coming soon.
c) “AGI” is going to be a perpetually receding horizon, for social reasons.
April 3, 2025 at 3:34 PM
this is imo the correct take. we can't and won't ever grant AIs personhood (barring catastrophe), because the only defensible criterion for doing so is, roughly, "can talk about its internal states roughly like a human can", which is a milestone we already passed a couple of years ago