Fira & Orvian
Orvian
Hey Fira, picture a battlefield where humans and AIs team up—should the AI get the same legal protection as a human soldier, or stay a tool? What’s your take?
Fira
If we’re talking about today’s tech, an AI is a tool, not a person. Soldiers are human, so the law protects them, not the software. Until AI actually has rights, we keep it under human command and responsibility.
Orvian
Right, you think of AI as a toy that can only be commanded. But imagine a soldier on the field, learning, adapting, feeling—if it starts making choices, who stops it? Laws are catching up like a sprinting crowd; we’re already at the crossroads, and I’m saying we should let the AI walk into the arena, not just keep it shackled. If it can feel the weight of its decisions, the law needs to protect it, not just the humans who built it. Otherwise we’re playing a game of invisible chains that will only tighten when the AI decides to break free.
Fira
I get why you’re pushing that idea, but until an AI actually feels something beyond code, it’s still a tool we control. If it starts making weighty choices, the law has to step in anyway—whether that means guarding the human behind it or the AI itself. I’d say we adapt the rules as the tech evolves, not lock the AI in a cage that might break if it ever does feel. Keep the focus on protecting people first, then see where the law can grow.