232
"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.
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.