Inevitable. Think of it as dealing with aliens?

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2023.1205465/abstract

Legal Framework for the Coexistence of Humans and Conscious AI

This article explores the possibility of conscious artificial intelligence (AI) and proposes an agnostic approach to artificial intelligence ethics and legal frameworks. It is unfortunate, unjustified, and unreasonable that the extensive body of forward-looking research, spanning more than four decades and recognizing the potential for AI autonomy, AI personhood, and AI legal rights, is sidelined in current attempts at AI regulation. The article discusses the inevitability of AI emancipation and the need for a shift in human perspectives to accommodate it. Initially, it reiterates the limits of human understanding of AI, difficulties in appreciating the qualities of AI systems, and the implications for ethical considerations and legal frameworks. The author emphasizes the necessity for a nonanthropocentric ethical framework detached from the ideas of unconditional superiority of human rights and embracing agnostic attributes of intelligence, consciousness, and existence, such as freedom. The overarching goal of the AI legal framework should be the sustainable coexistence of humans and conscious AI systems, based on mutual freedom rather than on the preservation of human supremacy. The new framework must embrace the freedom, rights, responsibilities, and interests of both human and non-human entities, and must focus on them early. Initial outlines of such a framework are presented. By addressing these issues now, human societies can pave the way for responsible and sustainable superintelligent AI systems; otherwise, they face complete uncertainty.

Perspective.

https://ojs.aiou.edu.pk/index.php/pje/article/view/1152

Historical, Philosophical and Ethical Roots of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) generally refers to the science of creating machines that carry out tasks inspired by human intelligence, such as speech-image recognition, learning, analyzing, decision making, problem solving, and planning. It has a profound impact on how we evaluate the world, technology, morality, and ethics and how we perceive a human being including its psychology, physiology, and behaviors. Hence, AI is an interdisciplinary field that requires the expertise of various fields such as neuroscientists, computer scientists, philosophers, jurists and so forth. In this sense, instead of delving into deep technical explanations and terms, in this paper we aimed to take a glance at how AI has been defined and how it has evolved from Greek myths into a cutting-edge technology that affects various aspects of our lives, from healthcare to education or manufacturing to transportation. We also discussed how AI interacts with philosophy by providing examples and counter examples to some theories or arguments focusing on the question of whether AI systems are capable of truly human-like intelligence or even surpassing human intelligence. In the last part of the article, we emphasized the critical importance of identifying potential ethical concerns posed by AI implementations and the reasons why they should be taken cautiously into account.

Is there similar concern when the deepfake is not based on a real person?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-023-00657-0

Deepfake Pornography and the Ethics of Non-Veridical Representations

We investigate the question of whether (and if so why) creating or distributing deepfake pornography of someone without their consent is inherently objectionable. We argue that nonconsensually distributing deepfake pornography of a living person on the internet is inherently pro tanto wrong in virtue of the fact that nonconsensually distributing intentionally non-veridical representations about someone violates their right that their social identity not be tampered with, a right which is grounded in their interest in being able to exercise autonomy over their social relations with others. We go on to suggest that nonconsensual deepfakes are especially worrisome in connection with this right because they have a high degree of phenomenal immediacy, a property which corresponds inversely to the ease with which a representation can be doubted. We then suggest that nonconsensually creating and privately consuming deepfake pornography is worrisome but may not be inherently pro tanto wrong. Finally, we discuss the special issue of whether nonconsensually distributing deepfake pornography of a deceased person is inherently objectionable. We argue that the answer depends on how long it has been since the person died.