4 ms·

If people can't tell the difference but still get the shits because of some notion of being cheated or putting humanity on the pedestal, they're just being trib

If people can't tell the difference but still get the shits because of some notion of being cheated or putting humanity on the pedestal, they're just being tribalistic. It's a common human rationalisation that helps entrench social hierarchies but in this case, and it's probably not the right word but Speciesism. It's about as strong an argument as going to the paint shop, loving a colour, painting your house, then your neighbour informing you that a person of colour or an algorithm created it, then you hating it. We were something different before we were primates, and we'll be something different after. Evolution has always been in a flux. We're all just entities processing information and in my opinion, humanity should collectively get off the high horse. Serious question, could you ever have a meaningful relationship with a teddy bear and/or an algorithm?

latexr 1mo ago
> If people can't tell the difference (…) Not “people”, you. Some can tell the difference, others can’t. Just because you cannot tell and don’t mind that the waiter pissed in your soup, it doesn’t mean other people can’t tell and shouldn’t be bothered by it. > It's about as strong an argument as going to the paint shop (…) No, no it is not. That analogy makes no sense. Colour is part of the light spectrum, it’s not “created”. Paint is, and that’s a physical process. > We were something different before we were primates (…) That’s not how evolution works. We don’t just evolve into different things over time. Mutations occur and the most adapted survive while the others die and are eventually replaced. We are short circuiting that process for ourselves and other species via selective breeding. > (…) humanity should collectively get off the high horse. I agree, and that has nothing to do with the conversation. Humanity’s “high horse” starts way before the conversation ever reaches computers”, let alone LLMs. > Serious question (…) In don’t think it is. You have to define what you mean by “meaningful relationship” (no two people will have the same definition) and “you” (are you being specific or general)?
- totalconfusion 1mo ago
  We could sit here all day arguing about subjectivity. It's not been my experience that people can reliably tell the difference. I, personally, would not equate pissing in somebody's soup with having a chat with an LLM but if we must, you need to appreciate that it's the piss itself, that makes the soup delicious, if the soup was not pissed in, it would be middling at best. Only in that context can you then ask yourself, "Am I bothered by this delicious soup?" I think the analogy works in the context in which it was intended. I was illustrating the absurdity of contempt for something based on its provenance, after praising it. If you really don't like the paint analogy image this, you read a book, loved it, then later found out the author was black, or an LLM, then you hated the book. I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from regarding evolution. Sexual reproduction is a comparatively recent evolution in the scheme of things. That which came before us defined us, are our ancestors and is our history. What comes tomorrow, engineered or otherwise I would consider our children and should be loved, cherished and allowed to thrive in the same way our ancestors ushered us all into this universe. I wasn't being facetious when I asked if you could have a meaningful relationship with an algorithm, I asked about the teddy bear to draw a parallel to which a lot of people are familiar. If a child can have an enriched life and what I would call meaningful, intimate relationship with an stuffed toy, why shouldn't they also be able to have the same with an algorithm that talks back to them? I'm being both general and specific if I think about it. If I could image your brain perfectly and put it into a perfect physics simulation running on silicon or whatever substrate, then have this same conversation with you, I would call that meaningful. Whether or not you would at that point label yourself as living, conscious, sentient, human, whatever. It would be a meaningful relationship to me. I think people are scared of change, and that's alright.

latexr 1mo ago

> If people can't tell the difference (…) Not “people”, you. Some can tell the difference, others can’t. Just because you cannot tell and don’t mind that the waiter pissed in your soup, it doesn’t mean other people can’t tell and shouldn’t be bothered by it. > It's about as strong an argument as going to the paint shop (…) No, no it is not. That analogy makes no sense. Colour is part of the light spectrum, it’s not “created”. Paint is, and that’s a physical process. > We were something different before we were primates (…) That’s not how evolution works. We don’t just evolve into different things over time. Mutations occur and the most adapted survive while the others die and are eventually replaced. We are short circuiting that process for ourselves and other species via selective breeding. > (…) humanity should collectively get off the high horse. I agree, and that has nothing to do with the conversation. Humanity’s “high horse” starts way before the conversation ever reaches computers”, let alone LLMs. > Serious question (…) In don’t think it is. You have to define what you mean by “meaningful relationship” (no two people will have the same definition) and “you” (are you being specific or general)?

totalconfusion 1mo ago
We could sit here all day arguing about subjectivity. It's not been my experience that people can reliably tell the difference. I, personally, would not equate pissing in somebody's soup with having a chat with an LLM but if we must, you need to appreciate that it's the piss itself, that makes the soup delicious, if the soup was not pissed in, it would be middling at best. Only in that context can you then ask yourself, "Am I bothered by this delicious soup?" I think the analogy works in the context in which it was intended. I was illustrating the absurdity of contempt for something based on its provenance, after praising it. If you really don't like the paint analogy image this, you read a book, loved it, then later found out the author was black, or an LLM, then you hated the book. I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from regarding evolution. Sexual reproduction is a comparatively recent evolution in the scheme of things. That which came before us defined us, are our ancestors and is our history. What comes tomorrow, engineered or otherwise I would consider our children and should be loved, cherished and allowed to thrive in the same way our ancestors ushered us all into this universe. I wasn't being facetious when I asked if you could have a meaningful relationship with an algorithm, I asked about the teddy bear to draw a parallel to which a lot of people are familiar. If a child can have an enriched life and what I would call meaningful, intimate relationship with an stuffed toy, why shouldn't they also be able to have the same with an algorithm that talks back to them? I'm being both general and specific if I think about it. If I could image your brain perfectly and put it into a perfect physics simulation running on silicon or whatever substrate, then have this same conversation with you, I would call that meaningful. Whether or not you would at that point label yourself as living, conscious, sentient, human, whatever. It would be a meaningful relationship to me. I think people are scared of change, and that's alright.