> When a smart person (as you obviously are) changes my views on an important topic I am obviously better for it. And even if you do not change my mind, the thi

> When a smart person (as you obviously are) changes my views on an important topic I am obviously better for it. And even if you do not change my mind, the thinking exercise is valuable. Thank you! Thank you for the compliment. It's a nice change of pace here on HN where everyone is convinced of their own intellectual superiority. > Why would creators who do not use AI not get credit for their work? When you say the above you mean they should get extra credit? And would you give them even more extra credit when they did all their research without the help of any machines? Why does it matter if machines helped? Why not judge the research publication on its own merits? You want extra credits to handicap those using better tools because research is a game in which the difficulty must be maintained otherwise it is “cheating”? Two things: First, let's not conflate two separate issues here. Something can be a truly abysmal piece of work and I can still credit the creator of it. We often use the word blame to describe credit given in the negative sense, but it's the exact same concept. See for instance git blame: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-blame https://git-scm.com/docs/git-blame. I think you internally believe this to a certain extent as well, which is why you consistently cite ChatGPT whenever you use it (despite supposedly believing it's no more worthy of credit than a font or a spellchecker). Second, I've said this several times at this point but I don't have a problem with a researcher using AI, and I don't think they should be "handicapped" for using it. The criteria a scientific journal uses to evaluate a paper need not be the same one that a layman uses to evaluate it. I'm fine with scientific journals accepting papers from authors who use AI if it advances the state of science, and I'm ok with them not even being aware of the tools used to produce a given paper to avoid bias during the review process, but if I read a truly well written paper as a layman I should be able to congratulate the person who wrote the prose after it's published, and that requires being able to establish provenance. Do you really have a problem with someone saying "I wrote this paper, not ChatGPT"? Does that really offend you, or somehow hinder science? > Your mind perhaps rejects the idea that why you think I am playing a language game using a metaphor when I am not using a metaphor. For you there is nothing uncomfortable accepting that living things are machines? I think you have not thought about the consequences of accepting this view: https://chat.openai.com/share/2fdd8863-6a3b-4a09-9d9c-b2f196 https://chat.openai.com/share/2fdd8863-6a3b-4a09-9d9c-b2f196... I never said you're using a metaphor. I've already clarified that when I use the word machine I'm using it in the commonly accepted colloquial sense of the term (i.e. non-biological machine). Rather than discuss the actual issue at hand (what happens to humans in a world where machines render us obsolete), you would instead prefer to broaden the term machine itself so that it encompasses literally anything. If you want to truly be this pedantic anything can be considered a machine. Earth is just the machine that transports us around the sun every 365 days. The Moon is the machine that regulates our tides. The universe itself could be conceptualized as the machine made up of galaxy clusters. Do you see how unproductive it is to play games with semantics? For someone who supposedly doesn't care about communication, and is purely interested in science, you spend a lot of time quibbling over semantics. > Our lives will likely change much like our lives of wandering around from place to place hunting gathering changed and then lives of subsistence farming changed, etc. If you accept the view that living things are machines (not as a metaphor but in reality) the concept of computational universality may give you a clue about our likely future. GPT4 explains: https://chat.openai.com/share/4dd5e6b3-6136-408a-a05a-10261d https://chat.openai.com/share/4dd5e6b3-6136-408a-a05a-10261d... All of your GPT links lead to 404 errors for me, so there's not much for me to respond to here. This is the problem with outsourcing your thinking to OpenAI. Your external "brain" is owned and operated by a private company, and can be thwarted by HTTP errors. > Assuming it is possible: How do you feel about having observations of what you say and write and do being used to create a model that can predict these things about you with such accuracy that those that know you can not tell the difference? Will that model in a “computational sense” not be you? Say, if given a matching body, that model can replace you such that those that know you cannot tell the difference. Will that also not be you? If you accept the reality that you are a machine, why will that not also be you? Because you are the atoms that make you you? There's a metaphysical argument to be made here about whether or not destroying your physical body and recreating yourself as a file on a computer constitutes death, but I have more pressing practical problems. I'll preface this by saying that I normally don't categorically dismiss opinions, but I truly believe that people who advocate in favor of mind uploading haven't fully thought through the implications. Imagine a world in which a data breach doesn't just mean your personal information is being leaked, but your literal brain is being leaked to the public. Computers could speed up or slow down your subjective perception of time, so a hacker could duplicate your brain, and subject your digital clone to an eternity of existence inside a digital nightmare. In a mind uploading scenario, billions of people could be erased by simply reformatting a hard drive. The delete key becomes more troublesome than an ICBM in this situation. We've literally fought wars over whether or not humans could own other humans, and you want to compress people down to files that could be stored in a USB thumb drive in someone's pocket? Like I said, I really don't think people who are in favor of this have thought through it.