Bit of a ramble here, feel free to jump ahead to my conclusion:
AI is a record player.
The Hirogen fared the results of their own programming. The holos of Flesh and Blood could achieve what they had without sentience. They were videogame characters with interactive subroutines. Not feeling beings with hearts; only digital analogs with mimicked responses. Would they have seemed so sentient if they were programmed as animal ninjas? They would have seemed like more of what they actually were: dangerous interactive characters running shoddy code. That code could just have easily compelled them to recite a day planner itinerary. In all these cases, the intelligence was that of the coder, and of course, the intelligent pattern recognition of the biological "players"; who determined their own willingness to personify the projections or not. Is Countess Slut Bunny (my new official name for Regina) anything more than a Japanese sex pillow/girlfriend?
The question is not whether they were alive - they were not. The question is - are we?
If the Bajoran leader in F&B got his wish and became a martyr, thus validating holographic existence by "representing" their connection to the Infinite somehow (sacrifice, enlightenment, superstition, tyrrany, etc) - then the question becomes - not, do holos have souls - they do not - but do humans?
If nothing else, the soul becomes a useful social construct, even if only metaphorically.
However, one thing biological entities have that holos do not: BODIES. Thus, body responses to physical stimulation are part and parcel with the "humanoid" experience, and again, irrelevant to the ultimate digital experience. A set of parameters only. Holos seem "real" only because we choose to perceive them as real. Doesn't make them valid individuals; it makes us overly concerned with the question of individualism and erring on the side of caution. Even where it does not apply.
BTW not all humans subscribe to individual rights (very unfortunately). It is a cognitive-cultural construct, not necessarily a biological inevitability. But as said before, even if only metaphorically, the concept has great usefulness. Can it be bent to include AI? Yes, certainly. Is it necessary? The only ones who could possibly answer that could also answer the question authoritatively, "What is a soul?" or perhaps, "What are we, really, and why are we here?"
Personally I will not just give AI the right to a soul. I need more than just personifying manmade electronics and manmade - alterable, governing - programming. Perhaps spontaneous emergence or something.... But not random probability nor differential PID calculations either. All recorded human intelligence at work.
AI is a record player. I'd try not to confuddle the machine with the musician it plays. Although we may very well have to preserve our own individual rights by including them, that is, if we collectively continue to value that cultural paradigm. It does not mean we have somehow achieved the authority to imbue a "soul." That would be hubris itself. And that is where I take an issue, in that sort of human arrogance and complacency with assumption. Yes, we are authorities. No, we are not authorities of the infinite universe - only in our limited grasp of it. Let's be honest.
