3 ms·
that is such a specious conclusion, of course it doesn't mean that. you're arguing in bad faith.
by arbitrage 6y ago
that is such a specious conclusion, of course it doesn't mean that. you're arguing in bad faith.
- ggggtez 6y agoConsidering the discussion of AI and Consciousness comes down entirely to definitions of words, I think it's reasonable to point out where these definitions will lead us. Of course what I'm saying is absurd. And yet, isn't that what the author proposes when he says that we can't hit dogs because they are conscious, but it's ok to hit a car? If consciousness is to be the measuring stick for moral behavior, then we should absolutely point out these inconsistencies. Keep in mind that this work was made along with Crick, who has occasionally espoused eugenics [1]. If the author is broaching into the subject of what constitutes personhood, we should be extremely skeptical of the path it leads to. [1] Whether or not you think his position is defensible, it at least should make you read the proposal more closely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Eugenics