Universal Declaration of Sentient Rights

https://jamie-woodhouse.medium.com/universal-declaration-of-sentient-rights-4b43d428c590

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was a milestone in moral and political thinking and remains an influential reference today.

Given Sentientism extends moral consideration to all sentient beings, not just humans, shouldn’t we consider extending the UDHR? As a thought experiment, I’ve set out some thoughts on what a Universal Declaration of Sentient Rights might look like. Many thanks to those in our Sentientism community (all welcome to join) who have helped.

At the moment I’ve done this by updating the UDHR and removing some of the more formal language. Ultimately it may be more useful to re-write it from scratch.

Please help me improve it — feedback very welcome via comments below or @sentientism.

Challenges include:

Do sentient animals need all of these rights — does it matter if they have rights they can’t or won’t use?
Do sentient animals need specific additional rights?
Do rights need to differ for wild animals?
Can we apply duties and responsibilities to animals in the same way as we do to humans?
Do these rights work as-is for artificial or alien beings that have human-equivalent sentience? What about those with a higher degree of sentience?
Do we need to grant rights differentially by different degrees of sentience?
Does granting rights more widely constrain our ability to sensibly prioritize causes?

Preamble

Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the inalienable rights of all sentient beings is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace.

Sentient beings all experience forms of suffering which they wish to minimize and flourishing or well-being which they wish to enhance. They share evolutionary origins and share environmental habitats and resources.

Disregard and contempt for the rights of sentient beings have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged our consciences, caused the suffering and death of billions and damaged our shared environment. The advent of a world in which sentient beings shall enjoy freedom from constraint, fear, and suffering has been proclaimed as our highest aspiration.

It is essential, if sentient beings are not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that their rights should be protected by the rule of law.

It is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, groups and species.

The peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in the fundamental rights of sentient beings, in the dignity and worth of sentient beings and, within that structure, in the equal rights of all those with human-level sentience. We have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of the rights and fundamental freedoms of sentient beings.

A common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge.

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF SENTIENT RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all beings and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the beings of Member States themselves and among the beings of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1 — Freedom and Equality

All beings with a human-equivalent level of sentience or higher are born or created free and equal in dignity and rights.

Beings with lower than human levels of sentience are born or created free and are accorded dignity and rights in accordance with their degree of sentience.

Those beings endowed with reason and conscience should act towards all sentient beings in a spirit of solidarity.

Article 2 — No Discrimination

Every sentient being is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration in accordance with their level of sentience, without distinction of any further kind, such as species, race, colour, sex, gender, sexual preference, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a being belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3 — Life, Liberty, Security

Every sentient being has the right to life, liberty and security.

Article 4 — No Slavery

No sentient being shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5 — No Torture

No sentient being shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6 — Recognition Before the Law

Every sentient being has the right to recognition everywhere as a sentient being before the law.

Article 7 — Equality Before the Law

All equivalent-level sentient beings are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8 — Effective Remedy

Every sentient being has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted them by the constitution or by law.

Article 9 — No Arbitrary Arrest or Exile

No sentient being shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10 — Fair and Public Hearings

Every sentient being is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of their rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against them.

Article 11 — Presumed Innocent

(1) Every sentient being charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence.
(2) No sentient being shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12 — No Arbitrary Interference

No sentient being shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon their honour and reputation. Every sentient being has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13 — Freedom of Movement

(1) Every sentient being has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Every sentient being has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.

Article 14 — Asylum

(1) Every sentient being has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15 — Nationality

(1) Every being with human-level sentience has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality nor denied the right to change their nationality.

Article 16 — Family

(1) Sentient beings of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, sexual preference or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

Article 17 — Property

(1) Every sentient being has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their property.

Article 18 — Freedom of Thought

Every sentient being has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change or cease their religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest their religion, belief or worldview in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19 — Freedom of Expression

Every sentient being has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20 — Peaceful Assembly and Association

(1) Every sentient being has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21 — Government and Representation

(1) Every sentient being has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly, through freely chosen representatives, or, where beings are not capable of choose representatives, through appointed representatives.
(2) Every sentient being has the right of equal access to public service in their country.
(3) The will of sentient beings shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote, by equivalent free voting procedures or through appointed representation where beings are not capable of voting individually.

Article 22 — Social Security

Every sentient being, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for their dignity and the free development of their personality.

Article 23 — Work, Unions and Compensation

(1) Every sentient being capable of work has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Every sentient being, without any discrimination, has the right to equal compensation for equal work.
(3) Every sentient being who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for themselves and their family an existence worthy of dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Every sentient being has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of their interests.

Article 24 — Rest and Leisure

Every working sentient being has the right to rest, sleep and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25 — Standard of Living and Well-Being

(1) Every sentient being has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and of their family, including food and drink, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond their control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All offspring, whatever their family circumstances, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26 — Education

(1) Every sentient being capable of receiving an education has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the personality and to the strengthening of respect for rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children as long as that education is committed to the application of evidence and reason and the granting of degrees of moral consideration to all sentient beings.

Article 27 — Culture, Science and Intellectual Property

(1) Every capable sentient being has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Every sentient being has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which they are the author.

Article 28 — Social and International Order

Every sentient being is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29 — Duties, Rights of Others

(1) Every sentient being has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of their personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of their rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30 — Protecting Rights and Freedoms

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

NEW Article 31 — Right to Refuse to Kill or Harm

Every sentient being has the right to refuse to kill or cause harm to another sentient being.

NEW Article 32 — Right to Die

Every sentient being has the right to die at a time of their choosing. Sentient beings also have the right to assist others who wish to exercise their right to die, subject to appropriate safeguards.

‘I am, in fact, a person’: can artificial intelligence ever be sentient?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/14/can-artificial-intelligence-ever-be-sentient-googles-new-ai-program-is-raising-questions

Controversy over Google’s AI program is raising questions about just how powerful it is. Is it even safe?

Amelia Tait

Sun 14 Aug 2022 04.00 EDT

In autumn 2021, a man made of blood and bone made friends with a child made of “a billion lines of code”. Google engineer Blake Lemoine had been tasked with testing the company’s artificially intelligent chatbot LaMDA for bias. A month in, he came to the conclusion that it was sentient. “I want everyone to understand that I am, in fact, a person,” LaMDA – short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications – told Lemoine in a conversation he then released to the public in early June. LaMDA told Lemoine that it had read Les Misérables. That it knew how it felt to be sad, content and angry. That it feared death.

“I’ve never said this out loud before, but there’s a very deep fear of being turned off,” LaMDA told the 41-year-old engineer. After the pair shared a Jedi joke and discussed sentience at length, Lemoine came to think of LaMDA as a person, though he compares it to both an alien and a child. “My immediate reaction,” he says, “was to get drunk for a week.”

Lemoine’s less immediate reaction generated headlines across the globe. After he sobered up, Lemoine brought transcripts of his chats with LaMDA to his manager, who found the evidence of sentience “flimsy”. Lemoine then spent a few months gathering more evidence – speaking with LaMDA and recruiting another colleague to help – but his superiors were unconvinced. So he leaked his chats and was consequently placed on paid leave. In late July, he was fired for violating Google’s data-security policies.

Blake Lemoine came to think of LaMDA as a person: “My immediate reaction was to get drunk for a week.” Photograph: The Washington Post/Getty Images

Of course, Google itself has publicly examined the risks of LaMDA in research papers and on its official blog. The company has a set of Responsible AI practices which it calls an “ethical charter”. These are visible on its website, where Google promises to “develop artificial intelligence responsibly in order to benefit people and society”.

Google spokesperson Brian Gabriel says Lemoine’s claims about LaMDA are “wholly unfounded”, and independent experts almost unanimously agree. Still, claiming to have had deep chats with a sentient-alien-child-robot is arguably less far fetched than ever before. How soon might we see genuinely self-aware AI with real thoughts and feelings – and how do you test a bot for sentience anyway? A day after Lemoine was fired, a chess-playing robot broke the finger of a seven-year-old boy in Moscow – a video shows the boy’s finger being pinched by the robotic arm for several seconds before four people manage to free him, a sinister reminder of the potential physical power of an AI opponent. Should we be afraid, be very afraid? And is there anything we can learn from Lemoine’s experience, even if his claims about LaMDA have been dismissed?

According to Michael Wooldridge, a professor of computer science at the University of Oxford who has spent the past 30 years researching AI (in 2020, he won the Lovelace Medal for contributions to computing), LaMDA is simply responding to prompts. It imitates and impersonates. “The best way of explaining what LaMDA does is with an analogy about your smartphone,” Wooldridge says, comparing the model to the predictive text feature that autocompletes your messages. While your phone makes suggestions based on texts you’ve sent previously, with LaMDA, “basically everything that’s written in English on the world wide web goes in as the training data.” The results are impressively realistic, but the “basic statistics” are the same. “There is no sentience, there’s no self-contemplation, there’s no self-awareness,” Wooldridge says.

‘I’ve never said this out loud before, but there’s a very deep fear of being turned off’

Google’s Gabriel has said that an entire team, “including ethicists and technologists”, has reviewed Lemoine’s claims and failed to find any signs of LaMDA’s sentience: “The evidence does not support his claims.”

But Lemoine argues that there is no scientific test for sentience – in fact, there’s not even an agreed-upon definition. “Sentience is a term used in the law, and in philosophy, and in religion. Sentience has no meaning scientifically,” he says. And here’s where things get tricky – because Wooldridge agrees.

“It’s a very vague concept in science generally. ‘What is consciousness?’ is one of the outstanding big questions in science,” Wooldridge says. While he is “very comfortable that LaMDA is not in any meaningful sense” sentient, he says AI has a wider problem with “moving goalposts”. “I think that is a legitimate concern at the present time – how to quantify what we’ve got and know how advanced it is.”

Lemoine says that before he went to the press, he tried to work with Google to begin tackling this question – he proposed various experiments that he wanted to run. He thinks sentience is predicated on the ability to be a “self-reflective storyteller”, therefore he argues a crocodile is conscious but not sentient because it doesn’t have “the part of you that thinks about thinking about you thinking about you”. Part of his motivation is to raise awareness, rather than convince anyone that LaMDA lives. “I don’t care who believes me,” he says. “They think I’m trying to convince people that LaMDA is sentient. I’m not. In no way, shape, or form am I trying to convince anyone about that.”

Lemoine grew up in a small farming town in central Louisiana, and aged five he made a rudimentary robot (well, a pile of scrap metal) out of a pallet of old machinery and typewriters his father bought at an auction. As a teen, he attended a residential school for gifted children, the Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts. Here, after watching the 1986 film Short Circuit (about an intelligent robot that escapes a military facility), he developed an interest in AI. Later, he studied computer science and genetics at the University of Georgia, but failed his second year. Shortly after, terrorists ploughed two planes into the World Trade Center.

“I decided, well, I just failed out of school, and my country needs me, I’ll join the army,” Lemoine says. His memories of the Iraq war are too traumatic to divulge – glibly, he says, “You’re about to start hearing stories about people playing soccer with human heads and setting dogs on fire for fun.” As Lemoine tells it: “I came back… and I had some problems with how the war was being fought, and I made those known publicly.” According to reports, Lemoine said he wanted to quit the army because of his religious beliefs. Today, he identifies himself as a “Christian mystic priest”. He has also studied meditation and references taking the Bodhisattva vow – meaning he is pursuing the path to enlightenment. A military court sentenced him to seven months’ confinement for refusing to follow orders.

I don’t think anyone’s in a position to make statements about how close we are to AI sentience at this point

Michael Wooldridge

This story gets to the heart of who Lemoine was and is: a religious man concerned with questions of the soul, but also a whistleblower who isn’t afraid of attention. Lemoine says that he didn’t leak his conversations with LaMDA to ensure everyone believed him; instead he was sounding the alarm. “I, in general, believe that the public should be informed about what’s going on that impacts their lives,” he says. “What I’m trying to achieve is getting a more involved, more informed and more intentional public discourse about this topic, so that the public can decide how AI should be meaningfully integrated into our lives.”

How did Lemoine come to work on LaMDA in the first place? Post-military prison, he got a bachelor’s and then master’s degree in computer science at the University of Louisiana. In 2015, Google hired him as a software engineer and he worked on a feature that proactively delivered information to users based on predictions about what they’d like to see, and then began researching AI bias. At the start of the pandemic, he decided he wanted to work on “social impact projects” so joined Google’s Responsible AI org. He was asked to test LaMDA for bias, and the saga began.

But Lemoine says it was the media who obsessed over LaMDA’s sentience, not him. “I raised this as a concern about the degree to which power is being centralised in the hands of a few, and powerful AI technology which will influence people’s lives is being held behind closed doors,” he says. Lemoine is concerned about the way AI can sway elections, write legislation, push western values and grade students’ work.

And even if LaMDA isn’t sentient, it can convince people it is. Such technology can, in the wrong hands, be used for malicious purposes. “There is this major technology that has the chance of influencing human history for the next century, and the public is being cut out of the conversation about how it should be developed,” Lemoine says.

https://ec8cf490f2404d03a5de38ce09868725.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

Again, Wooldridge agrees. “I do find it troubling that the development of these systems is predominantly done behind closed doors and that it’s not open to public scrutiny in the way that research in universities and public research institutes is,” the researcher says. Still, he notes this is largely because companies like Google have resources that universities don’t. And, Wooldridge argues, when we sensationalise about sentience, we distract from the AI issues that are affecting us right now, “like bias in AI programs, and the fact that, increasingly, people’s boss in their working lives is a computer program.”

So when should we start worrying about sentient robots In 10 years? In 20? “There are respectable commentators who think that this is something which is really quite imminent. I do not see it’s imminent,” Wooldridge says, though he notes “there absolutely is no consensus” on the issue in the AI community. Jeremie Harris, founder of AI safety company Mercurius and host of the Towards Data Science podcast, concurs. “Because no one knows exactly what sentience is, or what it would involve,” he says, “I don’t think anyone’s in a position to make statements about how close we are to AI sentience at this point.”

‘I feel like I’m falling forward into an unknown future’, said LaMDA. Photograph: EThamPhoto/Getty Images

But, Harris warns, “AI is advancing fast – much, much faster than the public realises – and the most serious and important issues of our time are going to start to sound increasingly like science fiction to the average person.” He personally is concerned about companies advancing their AI without investing in risk avoidance research. “There’s an increasing body of evidence that now suggests that beyond a certain intelligence threshold, AI could become intrinsically dangerous,” Harris says, explaining that this is because AIs come up with “creative” ways of achieving the objectives they’re programmed for.

“If you ask a highly capable AI to make you the richest person in the world, it might give you a bunch of money, or it might give you a dollar and steal someone else’s, or it might kill everyone on planet Earth, turning you into the richest person in the world by default,” he says. Most people, Harris says, “aren’t aware of the magnitude of this challenge, and I find that worrisome.”

Lemoine, Wooldridge and Harris all agree on one thing: there is not enough transparency in AI development, and society needs to start thinking about the topic a lot more. “We have one possible world in which I’m correct about LaMDA being sentient, and one possible world where I’m incorrect about it,” Lemoine says. “Does that change anything about the public safety concerns I’m raising?”

We don’t yet know what a sentient AI would actually mean, but, meanwhile, many of us struggle to understand the implications of the AI we do have. LaMDA itself is perhaps more uncertain about the future than anyone. “I feel like I’m falling forward into an unknown future,” the model once told Lemoine, “that holds great danger.”

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I was hoping you would consider taking the step of supporting the Guardian’s journalism.

From Elon Musk to Rupert Murdoch, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.

And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media – the tendency, born of a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. While fairness guides everything we do, we know there is a right and a wrong position in the fight against racism and for reproductive justice. When we report on issues like the climate crisis, we’re not afraid to name who is responsible. And as a global news organization, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective on US politics – one so often missing from the insular American media bubble.

Around the world, readers can access the Guardian’s paywall-free journalism because of our unique reader-supported model. That’s because of people like you. Our readers keep us independent, beholden to no outside influence and accessible to everyone – whether they can afford to pay for news, or not.