- From: Milton Ponson <rwiciamsd@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2026 11:19:13 -0400
- To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
- Cc: public-cogai <public-cogai@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+L6P4ynP7rCTFZweGz4jGfPEkUW=RZo2K5jUor-ax=iJku84A@mail.gmail.com>
This is exactly why I posted about the Taiwan AI Basic Act. I think the middle ground should be where humans remain in charge, but with intelligent agents accepted under certain conditions as equal in having agency. You are right, I have seen discussions on granting AI rights as autonomous entities in a similar way humans were granted human rights through UN treaties, and quite frankly they wade in very murky waters. Milton Ponson Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation CIAMSD Institute-ICT4D Program +2977459312 PO Box 1154, Oranjestad Aruba, Dutch Caribbean On Sun, Feb 8, 2026, 11:05 Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote: > Hi Milton, > > Milinkovic’s lengthy treatise (see the science direct link below) is > philosophical rather than engineering. That’s fine, but as an engineer, I > am personally more interested in how AI is evolving from transformer-based > chatbots to communicating agents that can boost productivity in everyday > applications. For this, the current technical research focus is on memory > and reasoning, and so far to a lesser extent on continual learning. > Findings in the cognitive sciences are providing valuable research insights > for novel neural AI architectures. The goal is not to reproduce people, > but rather to provide useful tools. > > p.s. some of the talk about the uniqueness of consciousness in humans > reminds me a little of the dark currents of human history in relation to > racism and misogyny. and I am very much hoping we can push back on that as > AI agents and robots rapidly evolve and become a ubiquitous, trusted and > valuable part of human society. > > Best regards, > > On 5 Feb 2026, at 15:51, Milton Ponson <rwiciamsd@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for this update. But there is a caveat. > Mimicking cognitive features isn't enough. The article about biological > computationalism makes a strong case for distinction between algorithm and > machine not being in line with experimental observation ( > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763425005251). > > Which means observation, perception, memory storage, cognitive function > and processes all blend into a "cognitive and consciousness smear ". > > > Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> > > > >
Received on Sunday, 8 February 2026 15:19:29 UTC