Oh huh history makes sense now

Part of the tricky distinction here is "basically right about everything" can mean "basically right about everything within its scope" versus "basically right about the size and nature of its scope"

But that first one is massively important

You literally said "it's not enough" and that is my point of disagreement

This is just asking for things to emerge fully-formed or they don't count. It's preposterous

Hobbes: "Why not? *We're* scared of *him*. Calvin: "Yeah, but *we're* just ordinary Earthlings, not weirdos from another planet like *he* is."

Were they not people before the invention of those buttons??

I mean you don't consciously do so, but it's all on a continuum

Part of all of us sees fictional characters (for instance) as people, otherwise we wouldn't engage with fiction and would as happily spend the same time watching simulation with no agents/characters

No but that's just one parameter of consciousness

People had conversations with Eliza too!

What I don't dispute is that we have finally replicated human language ability in itself, but that still doesn't necessitate internal experience

Another problem is how it mixes with the anthropomorphism
aspect — are you implicitly insulting the "person" that the AI presents itself as. It can be tricky not to

It comes down to whether the way you use it is grammatically a slur, and that is fairly complex but still determinable

Fair! I was only going by this vid

I don't think the audience here is being set up or made to look foolish, I think they're already anticipating the type of joke to come (just without specifics)

RIP 2025

2025-2025

My sense from reading it would be... the heat just isn't a problem and is strictly good for what they want. Obviously there are no humans, and also they didn't send something with a fancy computer in it. Instead they basically treated space as a fire to toast the marshmallow. I could be off base!

Welcome to the There Were No Signs club. Our headquarters is really hard to find.

This is going to sound sarcastic but honestly thank you for explaining the joke. I thought it was about Somali wine but the pun is good

That's exactly the problem though. My example was the "good" version that doesn't happen

But, also, loss of diverse subcultures??

Non-presidential offices are one thing, but as far as MAGA is concerned the President is the Daddy, full stop

Funny thing is that the US is still likelier to break this trend and have our first female president be Democratic (unless the Republican Party has a real post-Trump crashout) *because* Republicans are simply too sexist to nominate any at this point

Remember that both HRC and KDH got fairly close!

Ever since at least my early twenties I felt like I'd been robbed, as a boy, of narratives that center girls and their perspectives, because I constantly try to see myself through the lens of others and there was just a major deficit there (representation is getting better all the time, but still)

Okay but there's something to this across the culture as a whole in a weird way that I think almost "naturally" follows from combining "women are people" with the observed norms of gender

Like if you drop the first premise you get standard conservative culture, but if you don't, then you get This

(This argument cuts in both ways, to be clear. If some people were more honest, they'd say: stopping AI can only be done by adopting an ingroup-outgroup mentality against anything AI-adjacent, and there are tradeoffs to that but they're worth it.)

Or, to put it another way, the question we have to ask isn't just "how it affects other people" but how it affects the mind of the person saying it. There's nothing simple and barricaded about it

I'm personally not fond of "but I'm *not* touching you" sitches these days

But the next sensible argument is "To slur is by necessity to personify even as it is to depersonalize". You don't apply slurs to bad weather or other disliked things that are fully understood as nonpersons. I'm afraid it's a no-win deal

A lot of people agree but think we're just not there yet complexity-wise is all

Like, in the sense of: an abacus isn't conscious, these are "more conscious than" an abacus, but still not "as conscious as" say, a housefly

Wait, so the use of "clanker" is in some sense secretly restricted to "CEO/management of an AI company"?