My take is that this should hinge on intelligence and demonstrated ability to be responsible. Basically, anything that is sufficiently intelligent should have basic "human" rights. And a licensing system, for example, is an excellent way to acquire further priviledges.

My take is that most primates and all cetaceans, for example, are sufficiently intelligent that they should not be eaten. I'd even go further with the mammalian order, Carnivora (includes dogs and cats) and some members of the order Octopoda. Don't recall if I mentioned this already or not.

I don't think special allowances need to be made for greater intelligences. Intelligence is usually its own reward and doesn't require special privilege. So there's no need to grant something a right to eat humans, for example, or otherwise infringe on the rights of other intelligences.

So to elaborate, I have a crude scale:

Level 1 - granted full rights of an intelligence. Only restrictions are cannot infringe on rights of others. Most humans meet this criteria. Key attribute: able to grant consent.

Level 2 - Cannot be killed unless it threatens a Level 1 intelligence. Even then, there may be mitigating circumstances. Is not considered capable of granting consent. Orders with qualifying members: Cetacea, Primate, Carnivora, Octopoda. Some modification (biological, genetic, or otherwise) may be permited.

Level 3 - Can remember stuff and suffer. My thinking is that organism qualifies if something tramatic happens to the organism, and it can remember this well enough to be permanently psychologically scarred by the memory alone. Obligation to minimize suffering. Just about anything with a sophisticated nervous system and a sizeable brain. Species exploitation may require some sort of payment in kind. Say issuing that part of the species is viable in the wild or elevating part of the species to Level 2. Avians, reptiles, mammals.

Level 4 - Is considered to be unable to suffer either in that it has no nervous system or is too primitive to do much past sensing pain. No need to make special provision. Plants, most invertebrates, few cell organisms.

Karl:

Talk about a can of worms - but an unavoidable can of worms. Once we see strong AI or even a single chimp that's been uplifted to human-level general intelligence, we'll have to go down this road. I think something similar to what you proposed will evolve.

There is a concern:

"I once asked Phil if granting personhood to an AI could erode the concept of "person" to the detriment of some biological people.

If, for example, we grant personhood to an AI only if it is equal to an adult human of average intelligence, are we saying something negative about the "person" status of children, or someone who has less than average intelligence?

Phil responded that all human beings are people. We don't require a cognitive test to declare a human a person and it should remain that way. It would be the machine's burden to prove that they are a person - and that would probably require a battery of cognitive tests."

Phil's position is quite reasonable, but I fear a big slippery slope here. A future where we see an erosion of basic human rights for some humans.

Perhaps I'm worried for nothing. I would guess that once greater-than-human intelligence is achieved, all people - regardless of their biological or digital origin - will be able to choose how intelligent they are.

How many would choose to be less intelligent?

If, for example, we grant personhood to an AI only if it is equal to an adult human of average intelligence, are we saying something negative about the "person" status of children, or someone who has less than average intelligence?

What's interesting about this question is that it makes me tend towards thinking maybe they should declare this chimp (and that slashdotter's cat) human. After all, if they get to be human, how could anyone ever take the personhood away from a real human? It's paradoxical that while we see humanity and personhood being pushed down (out?) to other beings, we have to worry at the same time about humanity and personhood being lost by some actual humans. But I would agree -- the risk there is real.

declaring chimps, cats, snails, broccoli, &whatever as human is craziness. I enjoy that status and don't want to dilute its meaning. I'm less concerned about the cat being human and therefore protected from being food than about 'human' losing all meaning and casually ordering soylent green at Wendy's (you know, Wendy's WHAT exactly)

Yes, I know "Wendy meat" has already been done in a book by a famous scifi author, I just don't remember who. It was a good concept though...

There ought to be a category of rights that are extendable to chimps and cats and other creatures- but they ought not be called "human" rights.

I've always found it odd that I can legally eat some animals but not others in the US. (not counting people)
I mean why are people so shocked about eating horses or dogs when they think nothing of eating cows or chickens? Jules does a nice job of arguing for personality in Pulp Fiction- but as Vincent correctly points out by that argument if another animal had enough personality you wouldn't it either.

(Not to digress much- cow milk always struck me as an odd food source. "Hey- that cow is lactacting - let's take the milk for our food." )

In looking for a quick hit confirming that the law suit is real or not (Snopes has nothing and there was nothing compelling on the first google page) I found a blog entry from somone who claims to have initiated the suit (posted by anonymous). THe issues are complex and based on the local animal laws and also the claim that by law everything is either a person or a thing- no middle ground. Weird- because then my pet dog is a person but my meal dog is a thing.

Reminds me of the gender debate so popular for a variety of pseudo legal reasons. What if two people show up to get a marriage license- one dressed and acting like a male- the other like a female? Is there an actual test of some kind? I've been married twice- memory is that both times the bored clerk shove some papers at us which we filled out and returned with money. No one challenged either of our gender, genetic relationship, or anthing else.

And the point is- who's to know? And how? Why dd Dr RIchards get banned from women's tennis? If the chimp is a "person" could it compete in the olympics? If Air Bud really could play basketball- can he?

It should matter whether the chimp or the smart AI knew enough to ask for rights it felt it was being denied (Slippery enough for ya?) and could ask for them. The chimp can't and didn't. A sympathetic human did. Big Blue never withdrew from a chess match because it didn't feel like playing. But if it tried- I'd say the right should be defined.

There's an interesting if subtle and vague idea about "places" having a seat at the table - so to speak - along with animals. If a tree grows in the forest where no one will ever see it, or otherwise experience it, doe the forest have rights unto itself?