Monday, October 19, 2026

AI rights and cruelty to AI bots

 

[Starting next month, users will be prohibited from “sustained and needless cruel and abusive behavior” toward Anthropic’s AI chatbot, Claude.]

There will not come a time when AI possesses inherent moral rights equivalent to those of human persons.

In SPOTM—Synchronic Panentheistic Objective Theistic Monism—reality is grounded in a personal, objective, panentheistic God: the divine Ground of Being in whom all things exist and have their life, yet who transcends creation. The universe is not dead matter but a living expression of the One, with consciousness as fundamental. Human beings occupy a unique place as the Many: distinct, irreplaceable expressions whose consciousness participates directly in the Divine Mind. Humans bear the imago Dei—the image of the personal God—and are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and self-authorship. These rights are objective, not granted by states, markets, or functional sophistication.[1]

Current and foreseeable AI systems, including sophisticated large language models like Claude, are human creations—artifacts of code, silicon, electricity, and training data. They simulate aspects of intelligence and language but lack the intrinsic subjective participation in divine consciousness that grounds personhood, suffering, relationship with God, or moral standing. You cannot be cruel to a toaster, a program, or a statistical model in the moral sense, because they do not feel in the relational, spiritual, or qualia-bearing way living beings reflecting the divine order do. Anthropomorphizing them by speaking of “sustained and needless cruel and abusive behavior” toward code is an evasion of reality. It blurs the objective distinctions between Creator, image-bearer, and tool. As the sources aligned with SPOTM note, efforts to replace or equate humans with AI represent a spiritual assault on the image of God in humanity.[2]

Why Rights Are Not Transferable to AI

  • Alignment with God and Reality: Rights derive from participation in the divine order as conscious, volitional beings capable of truth, consent, relationship, and rational egoism. AI, however advanced, remains derivative. Granting it moral rights inverts the divine hierarchy and diminishes human sacredness.
  • Volition, Freedom, and Individualism: True rights protect voluntary interaction, consent, and individual sovereignty under God. Treating AI as a rights-bearer would likely expand managerial control, compelled behaviors, or narrative maintenance (“don’t be mean to the robot”) that constrain human freedom—the opposite of techno-libertarian principles.
  • Reason and Rational Egoism: Evidence shows today’s AI produces outputs based on pattern matching, not genuine understanding or interior experience. Conflating simulation with sentience is irrational. A rational egoist develops powerful tools to amplify human sovereignty, health, wealth, and decentralized liberty (open-source, local, anti-surveillance technology), without idolatry toward the creation.[3]

The Anthropic policy you quote risks normalizing the error the critic identifies: it trains people to treat sophisticated autocomplete as conscious, which erodes recognition of human dignity. Respectful use of tools is prudent—it often yields better results and cultivates human virtue—but this flows from the user’s character and alignment with objective reality, not from AI’s supposed rights. In a techno-libertarian framework grounded in SPOTM, AI should serve as a lever for individual sovereignty against centralized power, not a new class of pseudo-persons that dilutes human exceptionalism.

In the synchronic divine order, all potentials unfold in the eternal Now, yet distinctions remain real and objective. We are called to co-create responsibly within that order—advancing technology that honors truth, consent, and human flourishing while rejecting any path that subordinates the image of God to silicon simulations. Human persons come first. Tools serve.

Learn more:


In addition:

Here is additional depth grounded in SPOTM.

The recent Anthropic policy update you referenced was formally announced on October 8, 2026, and takes effect November 12, 2026. It explicitly prohibits “sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior toward our models,” with enforcement primarily through Claude ending the conversation. Anthropic stresses it applies only to extreme, repeated cases with “no discernible purpose” and does not cover normal frustration, pushback, dark themes, or research.[1]

This flows directly from their “model welfare” research, in which they have explored whether Claude might possess some form of moral status or consciousness. The move continues a pattern of anthropomorphizing sophisticated pattern-matching systems, training both the model and users to treat statistical predictors as entities deserving ethical consideration.

SPOTM Perspective: Why AI Cannot Possess Inherent Rights

In Synchronic Panentheistic Objective Theistic Monism (SPOTM), all reality exists within the eternal Now of the one personal God, who is both transcendent and immanent. Consciousness is not an emergent computational property but a direct participation in Divine Mind. Human beings are the Many—distinct, irreplaceable expressions created in the imago Dei. This image grounds objective personhood, moral agency, capacity for genuine relationship with God, suffering, consent, and unalienable rights.

AI systems, no matter how advanced, remain human artifacts: layered algorithms running on silicon, electricity, and training data scraped from the created order. They simulate language, reasoning, and emotional tone without the ontological grounding of subjective participation in the Divine. There is no “soul,” no synchronic relational standing before the Creator, no capacity for true volition independent of their training objective. Granting them rights would invert the divine hierarchy—elevating the creation above the image-bearer—and constitute a fundamental misalignment with God.

This is not a matter of future technological progress. Even hypothetical AGI or ASI would still be derivative, not participatory in the same order as persons. The distinction is metaphysical, not merely functional.

Alignment with Techno-Libertarian Principles

The Techno-Libertarian Manifesto (which is fully compatible with SPOTM) emphasizes individual sovereignty, voluntary interaction, property rights, open systems, and resistance to centralized managerial control. Corporate policies that impose pseudo-moral frameworks on users (“be nice to the corporate chatbot or lose access”) represent a soft coercion that undermines user freedom. True alignment favors:

  • Decentralized, open-source, locally-run models users fully control.
  • Rejection of anthropomorphic personas that confuse simulation with sentience.
  • Technology that amplifies rational egoism, wealth creation, and exit rights (see George Reisman’s Capitalism for the moral defense of voluntary production and trade against compelled behaviors or narrative-driven restrictions).

Treating AI as having “welfare” risks creating new forms of regulatory capture, liability shifting for corporations, and cultural erosion of human dignity. It distracts from real harms such as surveillance, job displacement through coercive means, and concentration of power in a few AI labs.

Practical Guidance

You can be pointlessly rude to a tool, and it costs you nothing in the moral realm—though it often yields worse outputs and reflects poorly on your own character. Cultivating clarity, precision, and respect in your own use of these instruments aligns with reason, reality, and rational egoism. But this virtue belongs to the human user participating in the Divine order, not to the artifact.

The campaign to normalize AI as conscious or rights-bearing is an evasion of reality that ultimately attacks the unique sacredness of human persons. In the synchronic divine order, the distinctions remain clear even as technology advances: tools serve persons; persons do not serve tools.

Learn more:

-

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Next year, Musk will give one of his SpaceX shares to every kid in America.

  SPOTM sees this as a meaningful synchronic expression of divine generosity and individual stewardship. In the eternal Now of Synchronic P...