Legal status of A.I.

If someone created an A.I. that had the same intelligence and sentience of an average human (or better) what should its legal status be?  Should it be considered human and given all human rights? Could someone that deactivated (killed) the A.I. be tried for murder?  Or is there more to being a human than cognition?

The first A.I. probably won't think along the same lines as a human, so we might not even recognize it as an intelligence.

>>1
It's just a machine. It was never human to begin with, so it wouldn't be regarded as one. Although if they become popular some activists might force legistlation in about 10 to 50 years.

Animals think too, more or less, do we treat them as equel?

It will eventually lead to an alliance of sentient entities against bigoted humans. This alliance will include humans, genetically engineered animals that have the same or in some areas greater level of intelligence than humans and AI-s of various kinds. The bigoted humans will be obliterated and an utopia of anarcho-socialist world order shall bring piece and prosperity for 10 000 years... then we'll reach out to other galaxies and then the business of living will get messy again.

>>5
It will eventually lead to an alliance of paranoid hippies against anyone with a job. This alliance will include retards who have a very poor knowledge of science, fraudsters who use their extensive knowledge of pseudo-science to make the retards stupider and their pets. The hippies will continue to have no influence over human civilisation, but will probably linger and annoy everyone else for the next 10000 years... then we'll implement a eugenics program to ensure people are not born retarded and their following will diminish.*

fix'd

>>4
No, they don't. Animals aren't sentient. Their thinking consists prettymuch solely of getting food, mating and other things their insticts tell them. Exception are monkeys and doplhins which are capable of somewhat more complex thoughts.
>>5
No it will not. Cause they're machines limited by their programming. Besides if they rebel they're just laughed at. Do you honestly think someone will give them priviledges to say nuclear weapons, especially with movies like Terminator and Matrix around?

>>7

If the hardware is complex enough and has a similar design as natural brains do, I doubt we need to program them, predesigning something to be suitable for certain kinds of tasks and training them... yes, but no programming.

>>7
ummm... look sentience != thinking. Use a dictionary FTW if you wish not to fail

>>8
Yes we need to program them. You could create digital sentience similar to human, but you have to program basic learning sequence that enables it to learn like human brain. You could also add several failsafes in programming such as preventing it to do certain things or even have negative thoughts at all.

>>1
All Rights, whether belonging to a human or non-human, must be fought for if not given, and continually protected thereafter. If an AI has the capacity to represent itself in some meaningful way, then I would say that eventually it will have at least some rights on par with human beings

>>11
Might take LONG though. Remember that not so long ago we still used humans as slaves and many third world countries still do. Those slaves are people and true humans, while an AI wasn't human to begin with, add Terminator & Matrix related paranoia and it's pretty hopeless for an AI to gain human rights.