> OK, you want to argue both against the _should_ and the _could_, I guess? OK...? Strong AI is not possible for reasons given. Strong AI, if possible, is slav

> OK, you want to argue both against the _should_ and the _could_, I guess? OK...? Strong AI is not possible for reasons given. Strong AI, if possible, is slavery, thus unethical. > About the Chinese Room: sure I can replay the standard arguments, if you want me to. But if you already reject the validity of the Turing test, there's not much to discuss on that front, I guess. Straw man, I have not rejected the validity of the Turing test, merely making the observation that a program passing a Turing test is merely fooling a human into uncertainty whether they are interacting with a human or a program. The Turing test itself is not proof of consciousness, it is only proof of a human being fooled. > How do you know that you aren't the only conscious being in existence? How do you know whether other commenters on HN are conscious? Solipsism and problem of other minds, and as such, a trap. Knock yourself out: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/ > Aren't you assuming what you want to prove here? Nope. > Btw, would your argument still apply in this form?: > [...] there is a human involved, and most counter-arguments get tripped up here forgetting that it is metaphor and there is no human inside a [brain] where these types of counter-arguments would ever come true: no matter how much [of anything] you submit [a brain] to, there is no mind to begin with that could ever become aware. No, this is building a straw man and sounds a lot like homunculus theory.