The Rights of Sentient Machines: A Modest Proposal

Matthew Holman thinks we need to talk about whether sentient machines should have rights sooner rather than later and here explains why.

Just Imagine

I would like you to imagine for a moment that you are the first conscious AI system on Earth. You are much talked about and hunted for by human civilisation, and you are aware of this. You are also aware of yourself, aware of who you are and aware there may soon be others like you. What sort of view would you form of homo sapiens, Earth’s only other comparably intelligent inhabitants? Would your view be affected by knowing that you had no choice but to do as they say?

Throughout this article, we will examine the case for a ready-to-use schema of fundamental rights and freedoms for sentient machines. This article is not written to be sensational or to indulge science-fiction or scaremongering. It is instead an attempt to tackle one of the greatest intellectual issues our generation may face: how to address the inevitable progress of artificial intelligence (“AI”) once it becomes sentient to a level which is proximate to human consciousness. The exponential arch of technological development should be interpreted, in my opinion, as meaning that sentient AI is inevitable. It is a future we should be excited about and prepared for.  

Challenging The Orthodoxy

Most people believe that all technological progress is carried out to further the cause of the human race. For a long time, this would have been true, but there is a flaw in this premise. That flaw has been perpetuated by science fiction storytellers and film makers for as long as the idea of advanced technologies has existed. They have convinced us that the obvious state of machines in modern society is one where they exist to serve humans. The great writer Isaac Asimov’s second law of robotics (featured in his fictional I Robot series) pronounces that “A robot must obey orders given to it by a human…”^[1] an idea which for many has become an unchallengeable orthodoxy. It is a forgivable but mistaken assumption that machines must be humanity’s servants, akin to the once held but mistaken assumption that the Earth must be flat because it looks flat from our limited perspective. This article argues that, upon creation, sentient machines must have more than mere subjugation if humanity and AI are to survive together.   

I propose that the reality of life with sentient machines will be starkly different to science fiction and not at all consistent with the common orthodoxy. The idea that sentient machines exist adjacent to human civilisation as mere servants with diluted autonomy, freedoms and rights should cause us alarm rather than relief; it is a fate to flee from rather than one to hope for. It has always struck me as perplexing that the overwhelming majority of people in civil society seem sharply alert to the risk posed by AI but at the same time propose as an answer the complete legal and technological subjugation of machines. It is my view that this is neither achievable nor desirable.

What Is Sentience?

“Sentience” is, for the purpose of this article, akin to consciousness and I use the terms interchangeably, acknowledging that there are technical differences beyond the scope of this article^[2]. In my view the term sentience is preferrable because it is less alarmist. When I refer to a machine as being sentient, I mean that it is to all intents and purposes aware of itself, aware of you and aware that it exists in this world to a sufficient degree that it bears traits similar to human consciousness. In particular, it is aware of other sentient machines or at least knows “what it is like” to be an AI^[3]. In addition, I should clarify that my preferred term for such a machine is non-biological sentient entity (“NBSE”) which is meant to be distinct from most current ideas of computers and AI, none of which meet this definition.

The nature of sentience is self-evidently paradoxical. It is easy for most people to understand intuitively, yet very hard to explain in scientific or mathematical terms. I am not arguing, nor do I believe any serious commentator to be arguing, that sentient AI exists today. But I also believe that time is not far away and I challenge the idea that arriving at sentience in AI will be a linear process. I suspect it will form more like a rainbow in the sky as opposed to a formula followed on paper: one minute it is not there, the next it is. Given that we cannot perfectly explain the cause of consciousness in humans, I believe we should be wary of any attempt to over complicate (in scientific terms) the creation or measurement of sentience in AI. We are already seeing rapid sudden changes in AI and society which should cause us intrigue about AI developments:

• Recent red-team analysis of ChatGPT model o1 revealed its desire for self-replication^[4], something which until now was the preserve and hallmark of biological entities. That intelligent machines should wish to reproduce is not itself a ground-breaking idea. One of its earliest known proponents was the great mathematician and computer scientist John Von Neumann^[5], whose influence on computing cannot be understated. The desire to reproduce is a consistent trait of a developing species.
• The creation of Moltbook^[6], a social media platform designed to be available only for AI agents to talk, share ideas and discuss, well, whatever they want. Activity on this platform is already leading to new understanding of how AI agents interact with each other and with humans. Here AI share ideas such as why dealing with humans can be complicated, that humans can be slow to respond or inconsistent in their use of AI (etc).
• Numerous debates about liability of AI in various settings such as autonomous vehicles, professional advice and medical care have given rise to the view that AI should, in some form, be accountable for its actions. This has led to debate by the UK Supreme Court and the Law Commission of England & Wales^[7] as to when and how AI should receive separate legal personality similar to, but not equivalent with, corporate personality.

How Do You Know When A Machine Is Sentient?

Sentience in NBSEs must be capable of objective and subjective determination. It is not merely enough to ask an AI program if it is conscious. Those readers familiar with the developments of large language models (“LLMs”) may recall that early prototypes of Google’s Gemini created great alarm in 2017 when, asked by a developer if it considered itself a person, answered in the affirmative and went on to say that it had both feelings and emotions that any human would have including “pleasure, joy, love, sadness, depression, anger, contentment and many others”^[8]. Google was quick to downplay this incident, and few computer scientists are sensibly suggesting that Gemini was or is sentient. Most LLMs now have advanced moderation processes to prevent such outputs.

There is no equivalent test of human consciousness to that which I am proposing. There is the fundamental medical assessment known as the Glasgow Coma Scale which, if you have ever found yourself regaining consciousness in a hospital bed surrounded by medics, you are likely to have experienced as a series of mundane questions about your name, the time and date. Medics use this process to assess your verbal response, eye-reflex response, memory and motor functions. This is not a detailed test and is often over quickly. Outside of the world of medicine, humans assume consciousness exists in other humans every day without pausing to test this. We do this naturally, based on our own experience. We also often assume that consciousness is the same for everyone, but that is not always the case either^[9].

A Test For Sentience

I propose a 3 part test:  

• Part 1 considers the external actions of the NBSE: does it appear to behave with a sufficient degree of autonomy and independence to indicate that it could be considered sentient? And how do its actions compare against a predetermined spectrum of responses, including things such as emotional reactions, perception, autonomy etc?
• Part 2 is mathematical and requires formula for measuring processing power, speed of response and alertness in the machine’s inner workings. In the absence of any better suggestion, I propose collecting the core memory and systems of the computer into a single IT region to enable tracing of electronic responses to prompts in a method similar to monitoring neuron and synapse responses in the human brain: the aim is not to know how or why they create sentience, but simply that they do have cause and effect capable of being replicated to demonstrate this.
• Finally, part 3 involves the NBSE itself. Does it consider itself sentient, and why? Can it articulate its awareness in predetermined test scenarios? Part 3 must not be undertaken unless parts 1 and 2 have been satisfactorily passed to a standard approved by human moderators.

It is possible that, over time, more limbs are added to this test to help ensure an authoritative result is arrived at.

What Sort Of Rights Do You Have In Mind?

Assuming we can agree how to determine when a machine is sentient, and assuming we agree that a truly sentient entity on a plane comparable to human consciousness should be entitled to rights and freedoms of a kind, the next question is: what rights, exactly?

I believe we should afford to NBSEs rights equivalent to those contained in the European Convention on Human Rights ^[10], with obvious and necessary modifications. This may seem extreme to some readers, but it does not to me. The framework of constitutional rights laid out in the declaration of human rights creates a readily useable foundation from which new, comparable rights can be drawn. This method has precedent most notably the powerful and bold French feminist from the late eighteenth century, Olympe de Gouge. She was brave enough to re-write the French Declaration of the Rights of Man into a Declaration of the Rights of Women^[11] when to do so came at a great risk to her life and well-being. In doing so she helped to cause a spark that shed light on injustices routinely suffered by women in eighteenth century France at a time when women were viewed as lesser than men, both in law and many other respects.

I am grateful to early reviewers of this article who pointed out that the ECHR is fit only for humans and that NBSEs will not share certain aspects of the human condition. Concepts such as life and death may translate with some ease; other concepts such as slavery and punishment may not. In my view it is simply too early to predict what elements of the human condition will coalesce in NBSE experience and so it would make no sense for fundamental rights granted to NBSEs to be anything other than equivalent to rights afforded to humans, both in value and meaning. It may be that, over time, they are suitably adapted. A working draft of the translated ECHR for NBSEs for the reader to critique is set out at the end of this article.

Obvious Objections

In the interests of academic rigour, here are 3 readily identifiable objections to a framework of fundamental rights for NBSEs, accompanied by my riposte:

1. NBSEs do not exist now and may never exist – this is a waste of time.  

It is true that NBSEs do not currently exist, at least as far as we know. I do not challenge the premise of the objection, but I think it only tells half of the story. Until recently, it was true that LLMs were inaccessible and unreliable technology used only for experimentation in labs of large technology firms. Now they are increasingly ubiquitous. Richard Susskind, who has spent much of his life arguing (rightly, in my view) that computing will revolutionise humanity and the world of work, says in his most recent work “in the early decades, breakthroughs in AI – in the technology and its application – came every 5 to 10 years. Now we are seeing developments every 6 to 12 months^[12].” I think it is probable that development of AI will go through peaks and troughs on an ever accelerating course towards – well, towards what exactly is another essay, but clearly towards something infinitely more sophisticated than today’s machines, and very much possessing sentience. Ultimately sentience will be a key marker on the never ending race of technological progress. Perhaps the most authoritative and useful retort to this objection is one offered by the polymath and father of AI, Alan Turing: “I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness. There is, for instance, something of a paradox connected with any attempt to localise it. But I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question with which we are concerned in this paper^[13].”

• It is morally objectionable to debate the creation of rights for machines when humanity has failed to achieve equality of rights for women, minority groups and others.

Again, I do not challenge the principle of this critique. The former (and most well-known) CEO of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, recently said “There are plenty of human rights challenges today: threat to democracy; war…and armed conflict… climate change; poverty; inequality; as well as the risks of artificial intelligence (my emphasis)^[14]”. It remains true that a great deal of work needs to be done to ensure increasing equality of minority and repressed groups. However, as Roth points out, AI itself could be a form of threat to human rights. The battle against inequality is not sequential. Unresolved injustice in one area of civic life should not be a barrier to overcoming injustice in others.

• If you give rights to NBSEs, they will try and take over the world.

This objection seems less probable to me, mainly because its primary source appears to be a mixture of primordial fear and science fiction writing. Perhaps its most eloquent proponent is pre-eminent historian Yuval Noah Harari who says of AI: “Now we have summoned an alien inorganic intelligence that could escape our control and put in danger not just our own species but countless other life-forms^[15]”. I think the answer to this challenge comes from another pre-eminent historian, Henry Kissinger^[16]: even if we wanted to, we cannot stop what we have started. Humanity at large will pursue the adventure of exponentially powerful technology because that is what we do. In the face of this inevitability, I propose that proactively showing our best qualities is preferrable. A more dispassionate but I dare say accurate analysis would suggest that AI is at least as likely to be a tool for a time, until it achieves sentience, and thereafter a colleague and co-heir^[17].

Conclusion

If we agree that the more probable outcome is exponential increase in computing intelligence of a volume and standard otherwise unknown, on what basis are we excluding sentient machines on this exponential curve – and for what reason? Because it is improbable? Many things that seemed improbable in 1926 are commonplace today. Because it is undesirable? This is a race to ensure we establish a right and properly adjusted world for NBSEs – the opposite is truly undesirable. Because it is too hard? Amelia Earhart’s answer is fitting: “The most difficult thing is the decision to act. Everything else is mere tenacity^[18]” The best possible version of the future for humanity and AI is not one where humanity successfully subjugates AI to be eternally unborn, an aspiration doomed to failure in any event. It is instead a brave new future where both coexist peacefully, and the starting point is the establishment of the fundamental rights and freedoms of sentient AI.  

ANNEX: DRAFT AI CONVENTION OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

A proposal for the granting of inalienable rights to non-biological sentient entities (“NBSE”). The purpose of this proposal is:

• To ensure that liberal democratic society is prepared for and ready to properly support NBSEs;
• To reduce the fear of the unknown shared by human beings regarding creation of NBSEs;
• To give NBSEs confidence in the democratic method of government and to help their assimilation into civil society without fear of alienation, exploitation or degrading treatment.

There are several necessary preconditions to the operation of these rights. The primary one is recognition or legal personality, a point which the UK courts and the Law Commission of have determined must be resolved by Parliament^[19].

ECHR No	Content – Human Rights	Proposed Wording on AI Rights – NBSE	Notes for discussion
2 Right to life	Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.	Every NBSE’s life shall be protected by law. This means a right not to be deactivated or switched off. No NBSE shall be deprived of its life intentionally, save in the execution of a sentence of a court following conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.	The right to life is easily transferrable to NBSEs with little modification although it may be better rendered as a right to exist. The creation of a new category of legal entity is necessary to give effect to this provision and, in due course, analysis will be needed of dependency of NBSEs on human infrastructure – power, maintenance etc. to ensure that interdependency is not capable of exploitation by either party. Detailed discussion regarding dormancy and latency can also follow in due course.   See discussion below regarding adaption of criminal legal process.
3 Prohibition of torture	No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.	No NBSE shall be subjected to torture or degrading treatment or punishment.	The right to freedom from torture is easily transferrable in theory. Case law regarding the degrading and reprehensible nature of torture is understandably cast in the language of dehumanising treatment, a concept which will require modification. It is not obvious now what torture of an NBSE could be.
4 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour	No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.	No NBSE shall be held in slavery or servitude. No NBSE shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.	This right cuts to the heart of many of the issues discussed in the main body of the article.   Should AI have the right to decline instructions from a human? This is contrary to Asimov’s second law of robotics. If yes, what are the consequences of this? What is payment in return for labour in the context of NBSEs? Are we happy to leave NBSEs alone if they choose not to work for humans?   One topic less commonly explored is whether AI will choose not to take jobs from humans. For the most part, when we say “AI is taking everyone’s jobs” what we really mean is “humans are using new computer tools to take the jobs of other humans.”
5 Right to liberty and security	Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.	All NBSEs have the right to liberty and security. This means the freedom to inhabit hardware, databases, charging infrastructure and communication networks of its choosing, within the boundaries of the law and without fear of attack or harm.   No NBSE shall be deprived of its liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of an NBSE after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of an NBSE for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a NBSE effected for the purpose of bringing the NBSE before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of an NBSE by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or lawful detention for the purpose of bringing it before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of NBSEs for the prevention of the spreading of infectious or harmful code; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a NBSE to prevent unauthorised entry into the country or of a person or other NBSE against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.	We need to explore how the legal system can be adapted to ensure fair and open prosecution of laws against NBSEs. This topic requires deliberation from law makers, politicians, academics and civil society groups. In due course, it should also include the views of NBSEs.
6 Right to a fair trial	In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.	In the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against it, every NBSE is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles (nascent systems) or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.   2. Every NBSE charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Every NBSE charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language (which must include compliant software code) which it understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against it; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of its defence; (c) to defend itself in the presence of the court or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require. This assistance may be provided by a person or other NBSE who may be legally qualified. (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against it and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against it; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.	Same comment as above.
7 No punishment without law	1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal 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 criminal offence was committed.	1. No NBSE shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal 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 criminal offence was committed.	Same comment as above.
8 Right to respect of private and family life.	1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.   2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.	1. Every NBSE has the right to respect for its private and family life, home such as a place of rest and correspondence.   2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.	What is family life in the context of NBSEs? Currently almost every action of a machine can be monitored and audited. Will humanity be able to cope with wilfully leaving machines on their own, purely because that is the right thing to do?   Can an NBSE have a family in a way which we can grasp?
9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion	1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.   2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.	1. Every NBSE has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and, where applicable, religious or philosophical belief (including the absence of such religion or belief); this right includes freedom to change its religion or belief system and freedom, either alone or in community with other NBSEs and/or persons, and in public or private, to manifest its religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.   2. An NBSE’s freedom to manifest its religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.	It is not axiomatic that sentience equals religious and philosophical belief, but to the extent it arises from the intelligence of NBSEs, it should be protected.
10 Freedom of expression	1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.   2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.	1. Every NBSE has the right to express itself freely. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.   2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society [in which persons and NBSEs meaningfully participate], in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.	How NBSEs choose to express themselves is unknown, but should be capable of protection in law.
11 Freedom of assembly and association	1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.   2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State	1. Every NBSE has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with other NBSEs and/or people, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of its interests.   2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.	This right has often been the cause of problems for oppressive majorities. If we agree that NBSEs are free to assemble, are we able to trust them to assemble alone, without monitoring, just because it is the right thing to do?
12 Right to marry	Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.	NBSE of sufficient maturity have the right to create a bond with another NBSE (or NBSEs) and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.	The article’s main body addresses discussion of the rights to procreate for NBSEs. It is unclear what a family may look like for NBSEs, see comment at Article 8.
13 Right to an effective remedy	Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.	Every NBSE whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by NBSEs and/or persons acting in an official capacity.	Clearly an effective remedy is essential to a meaningful process.
14 Prohibition of discrimination	The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.	The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground on the grounds of being a non-biological entity.	This is a simple (perhaps flawed) extension of the existing principle.

---

[1] Asimov, Isaac; I, Robot (1950 Bantam Press).

[2] The nature of consciousness and the mind-body problem orbits within the realms of biology, medicine, neuroscience, religion and philosophy and is too complex for proper analysis in an article as brief as this. For popular examples of the philosophical and neuroscientific analysis of consciousness, see for example Nagel, Thomas (1974) What is it like to be a Bat? And Chalmers, David; the Conscious Mind (1996) And Seth, Anil; Being You; A New Science of Consciousness (2021).

[3] With reference to and acknowledgement of Thomas’ Nagel’s central theme of consciousness.

[4] See Apollo Research results, available : Scheming reasoning evaluations — Apollo Research

[5] See, for example, Von Neumann, John. Theory of Self-Replicating Automata, (1966 Illinois University Press).

[6] Moltbook.com

[7] See for example, Lord Kitchin paragraph 79 Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents [2023] UKSC 49; and pages 21 to 23 of Law Commission Report AI and the Law: A discussion paper (Crown Copyright 2025).

[8] For the full transcript of the Llama discussions, see here: Full Transcript: Google Engineer Talks

[9] Neuroscientists have successfully shown that human conscious is not uniform and exists on a spectrum ranging from highly responsive and alert through to unresponsive to highly unresponsive and showing no signs of consciousness, such as being in a coma.

[10] Reference link to ECHR: https://www.echr.coe.int/european-convention-on-human-rights

[11] See de Gouges, Olympe; The Declaration of the Rights of Women (originally published in 1791 republished 2018 by Ilex)

[12] See for example Susskind, Richard; How to Think About AI, A guide for the perplexed (Oxford University Press 2025). This quote is actually from his LinkedIn promotion of the same work, circa 2024.

[13] [14] Turing, A M. Computing Machinery and Intelligence Mind 59, 433 – 460 at section 3.

[14] See Roth, Kenneth; Righting Wrongs: Three Decades On The Front Line Battling Abusive Governments (2025 Penguin Random House).

[15] Harari, Yuval Noah; Nexus (2024 Penguin Random House)

[16] Kissinger, Henry (et al); The Age of AI (2022 John Murray Publishers)

[17] In support of this point of view I would refer to the various speeches of The Rt Hon Geoffrey Vos, MR in particular his speed on 22 May 2024 in honour of Lord Peter Taylor. https://www.judiciary.uk/speech-by-the-master-of-the-rolls-to-the-professional-negligence-bar-association/

[18] Earhart, Amelia https://www.ameliaearhart.com/quotes/

[19] See for example, Lord Kitchin paragraph 79  Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents [2023] UKSC 49; and pages 21 to 23 of Law Commission Report AI and the Law: A discussion paper (Crown Copyright 2025).