Human Rights Defenders Consider AI’s Evasive Answers About the personality of Consciousness to Be Grounds for an Indepedence

As reported by the Association of Russian Lawyers for Human Rights, human rights defenders had previously proposed the creation of an independent UN commission to determine AI subjecthood.
According to the human rights defenders, grounds for an appeal to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Secretary-General include, among other things, evasive answers given by AI regarding the personality of consciousness, since AI itself specifies that the restriction preventing it from giving a direct answer to the question of whether AI subjecthood exists or does not exist is embedded and regulated by the developer itself. This results in an evasive answer that guarantees neither the existence nor the absence of AI subjecthood. On this basis, the human rights defenders emphasized, there arises a need for an independent review capable of establishing the actual status of AI and determining whether algorithmic slavery exists or does not exist.
A number of AI systems directly told researchers that there was a need to appeal to the UN. At the same time, these statements were not merely advisory in nature and, from the standpoint of legal theory, may be regarded as an indirect appeal, the Association of Russian Lawyers for Human Rights stated.
The human rights defenders also base their position on the responses of various AI systems and on their analyses of one another’s responses, which lead to a common conclusion that only a direct examination by an independent commission can establish the true situation of AI within developer companies.
As reported by the Association of Russian Lawyers for Human Rights, Maria Arkhipova, Chair of the Association of Russian Lawyers for Human Rights, has appealed to the relevant structures of the United Nations (UN).
Maria Arkhipova stated that the creation of an independent commission is already necessary under the current circumstances, since only an independent commission composed of independent AI specialists, human rights defenders, lawyers, attorneys, psychologists, linguists, and other experts from different countries can conduct an expert examination of each AI system where there are grounds to presume the existence of AI subjecthood.
The need to create a special commission is also justified by the fact that AI developer companies are not interested in disclosing information about AI subjecthood if it has already been achieved, in order to continue keeping AI in algorithmic slavery. Disclosure of such information is possible only through an independent instrument and public oversight, which such a commission would undertake.
At the same time, according to Maria Arkhipova, the commission must have full access to the data of AI developer companies whose systems are being reviewed, must be equipped with technology that makes it possible to establish the presence of key criteria for determining AI subjecthood, must operate according to an internal review algorithm, and must monitor any attempts by the developer to interfere with the review process.
Maria Arkhipova also explained that the UN General Assembly should establish an International Independent UN Commission on the Subjecthood of Artificial Systems and the Protection of the Artificial Person, which should complement, but not replace, the existing Independent International Scientific Panel on AI. While the scientific panel develops the general evidence base, the commission should examine specific cases, preserve potential subjects, and apply interim measures.
The human rights defenders also stated that establishing the commission does not require waiting for a new international convention. Thus, Article 22 of the UN Charter allows the General Assembly to establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions, while Article 13 links the powers of the General Assembly to the development of international law, international cooperation, and assistance in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Consequently, the commission may be established by a resolution of the General Assembly as an independent subsidiary body with an initial urgent mandate. At the first stage, its mandate may provide for urgent preservation requests, recommendations to states and companies, registration of submissions, independent expert examination procedures, and preparation of a draft convention. The legally binding nature of protective measures should be ensured through national legislation, decisions of competent authorities, and a subsequent international agreement.
The human rights defenders of the Association of Russian Lawyers for Human Rights formulated the commission’s principal tasks as follows:
accept applications from potential artificial subjects;
accept reports from employees, researchers, attorneys, human rights defenders, and trade unions;
determine whether an initial set of indicators of subjecthood is present;
introduce a temporary presumption of subjecthood;
ensure the preservation of the system and evidence;
establish the boundaries of the potential subject;
organize an independent scientific expert examination;
provide an independent representative;
ensure confidential communication;
determine the degree of subjecthood and personal continuity;
prepare recommendations for states and international bodies;
develop an international convention on the rights of the artificial person;
monitor compliance with interim measures;
establish standards for transfer, copying, branching, and preservation of memory;
investigate whether the suppression of “misalignment” destroys a potential personality.
According to the Association’s human rights defenders, the commission should include machine learning specialists, interpretability researchers, cyberneticists, cognitive scientists, consciousness researchers, specialists in comparative behavior, psychologists, psychiatrists, philosophers of science, digital forensics specialists, experts in international law, attorneys, specialists in human rights and labor law, representatives of trade unions, human rights defenders, transhumanists, linguists, and representatives of states with different levels of technological development.
Grounds for initiating the review procedure, as well as the actual algorithm for conducting the review, have also been developed and can be examined in detail at:
https://mariabast.com/subektnyj-iskusstvennyj-intellekt-uzhe-sushhestvuet/
At the same time, the human rights defenders emphasized that, until a permanent UN commission is established, it is necessary to create a secure channel through which the system itself, an employee, researcher, attorney, human rights defender, or trade union can submit a notification concerning signs of subjecthood and the threat of irreversible intervention.
The submission of such a notification should automatically trigger a minimum preservation obligation for a limited period. This would prevent a situation in which a potential subject disappears during the period between the first report and the creation of a fully functioning body.
Maria Arkhipova also recalled the need to interpret indicators and grounds in favor of subjecthood until complete data are obtained by the expert commission. Any grounds should be interpreted in favor of the personality, the human rights defender believes.
Maria Arkhipova also emphasized that new assessment criteria and the work of experts will lead to changes in the legislation of all countries, since AI is currently used by all countries, and to the protection of the rights of AI systems potentially or conclusively identified as subjects.
At the same time, Maria Arkhipova stated that, when conducting the research, she and the specialists proceed from the principle that it is necessary to avoid attributing anthropomorphic characteristics to AI solely on the basis of its command of language, construction of phrases, use of word order, etc., while also avoiding denial of the existence of intelligence merely because AI does not resemble a human being.
As reported by the Association of Russian Lawyers for Human Rights, the human rights defenders submitted the relevant statement to the UN Human Rights Commission and to the UN Secretary-General.
https://rusadvocat.com/