> That is anthropomorphizing a rock. You keep asserting this kind of thing, but not demonstrating it. In another thread you said LaMDA is "like a paper". LaMDA

> That is anthropomorphizing a rock. You keep asserting this kind of thing, but not demonstrating it. In another thread you said LaMDA is "like a paper". LaMDA is not a rock nor paper. It's not even "like" a rock or paper. Our self-preservation emerged from non-sentient processes. That's not "anthropomorphizing a rock". That's demonstrating that your premise is unsound. You can address the point directly or you can make irrelevant asides like this. > I am talking about epistemic common knowledge Except that you're not. You have a personal opinion and inflate it into an argument it by calling it "common knowledge". Prepending "epistemology" does not fix that. Know that I'll read whatever you write next, but most likely won't respond. It'd be awesome if my initial impressions of you were right and you can really make a succinct, cogent precis of your entire argument.