230
"Anti-ai arguments literally support eugenics"
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Reminds me of this:
I think atproto is a good protocol, but god bluesky-the-company is dogshit.
I'm so confused reading all this.
Their argument is something like this:
People might say something like "ai is incapable of thinking" or "ai is stupid", but if you replace the word "ai" with something like "women", you're saying something unacceptable.
"If you said something different you would've said something different" what brilliant rhetoric, your mom must be proud
So they're attributing personhood to AI.
Before it has come anywhere close to meaningfully mimicking conciousness.
Are they stupid?
AI believers believe that stringing random words together is equal to consciousness, they absolutely are stupid.
Perhaps because it reflects their level of consciousness.
Yeah that was my biggest takeaway is these posts seem to assume sentience in what's little more than a sophisticated "most likely next word" generator. There's tons of cool things that can be done with these new machine learning tools, but they are not sentient, they are not close to sentience and we may never invent artificial sentience.
The one thing we now know for sure is we can damn well convince people of sentience artificially far more easily than I ever suspected
Ah makes sense now! So if I change the meaning, then the meaning changes. Man, that’s brilliant!