> In the same way there's "nothing substantially different" in humans from any other run of the mill matter. This is an incredibly intellectual vacuous take. I

> In the same way there's "nothing substantially different" in humans from any other run of the mill matter. This is an incredibly intellectual vacuous take. If there is no substantial difference between a human being and any other cluster of matter, then it is you who is saddled with the problem of explaining the obvious differences. If there is no difference between intelligent life and a pile of rocks, then what the hell are you even talking about? Why are we talking about AI and intelligence at all? Either everything is intelligent, or nothing is, if we accept your premises. > I find that all this talk of "illusion" is nothing but anthropocentric cope. Humans want to be those special little snowflakes, I wish this lazy claim would finally die. Stick to the merits of the arguments instead of projecting this stale bit of vapid pop-psychoanalytic babble. Make arguments.